Now that Superman (2025) is now out in theaters, I decided to do something totally insane and rank every single DC movie ever! Not just the movies related to the DC Extended Universe or the brand new DC Universe but all theatrically-released films that have some sort of connection to DC. That includes all the Batman, Superman, DC imprints, and even animated films that have been released in theaters of all kind!
Throughout last year, I actually took the time to watch every other DC-related film that I haven’t got around to just for the sake of making this list. Why? Because I have no life whatsoever and I like making insane lists! That’s why!
But anyways, let’s get into list making and rank all 57 theatrically-released DC Comics films from best to worst! If you agree with this list, awesome! If you disagree, fine and I likely will by the time I actually publish this! Either way, let’s have some fun and rank these superhero flicks!
Btw, NO I’m not going into any sort of description of each said film because then this list would take a million years to make! I’m just gonna let the ranked number for each film speak for themselves!
At long last, Superman (2025) is now out in theaters, the first standalone Superman movie in over a decade and the first film set in the new DC Universe! Because of that, we now have ten films that have Superman in a large prominent role to rank from worst to best!
Superman has to be one of the most complicated superheroes in the history of DC Comics! While he is perhaps the most iconic superhero of all time, representing hope, optimism, and kindness in ways that no other superhero out there has, his films have had a long road of inconsistency and downright disappointment! There are certainly greatness to be sure but when looking through the entire filmography with Supes, you can definitely tell he has certainly NOT been given the love and care that say…..Batman has been given throughout his history in cinema!
Even so, we have ten movies to rank so let’s get right into ranking them!
10.) Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
Nine years later, I’m still in awe how you take a crossover with two of the most well-known comic book heroes in Batman and Superman and make it so dull, lifeless, and joyless. Dawn of Justice is a film that wants to comes across as the most grand and ambitious movie every made, but when you look deep into it, this movie actually doesn’t have much to say on anything it’s talking about. Other than trying to cram two to three movies worth of material into one film, there’s nothing really risky or daring here and it’s so-called themes have been done much better in plenty of other superhero films. The plot is a convoluted mess no matter which version you watch, all of the Superman characters from Clark to Lois to Lex Luthor to Doomsday are all done INCREDIBLY dirty, and the conflict between Batman and Superman is so incredibly ridiculous that it could have been avoided if they would just simply talk to each other.
Ben Affleck is fine as Batman and there’s a few standout moments here (The warehouse fight scene and Wonder Woman’s first appearance are all-timers) but that’s nowhere near enough to save this turd of a film. Even the ultimate edition which many claim “saves” the movie really just has more of the same things that were wrong in the first place, aside from being pacing. If there is a clear difference between ambition and aimlessness, then Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice certainly strikes the finest line yet between those two definitions with results that fit more of the latter than the former.
This is a movie so bad that it not only arguably killed the DC Extended Universe before it even got going but also caused big damage to Superman’s reputation in pop culture, leading an entire generation of folks who firmly believe THIS is what Superman was always meant to be like when it’s absolutely NOT! I know tomatoes are going to be thrown at me for putting this at the very bottom but I’m sorry! When looking at it as both a DC superhero movie AND a Superman movie, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Both the theatrical and ultimate edition!) is an epic failure on every level!
9.) Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
If you thought Batman & Robin was the perfect example of superhero movies hitting rock bottom in the pre-21st century, then you should check out what they did to Supes in Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. Not only is this easily one of the worst superhero movies ever, it’s by far one of the worst main budgeted movies ever made. Even at the time of it’s release, the flaws that is presented on screen are so glaringly obvious!
It looks incredibly cheap with clearly unfinished special effects, obvious green screen, lazy as hell editing, and absolutely godawful transaction from one scene to the next. Throw in an absurdly stupid script, laughable dialogue, social/political commentary that doesn’t work in the slightest, no sense of logic, sense, or flow to anything happening on screen, and incredibly phoned-in performances and you get quite the big shitty picture. Even if you can argue that this film should be seen as a “so bad it’s good” kind of movie like Batman & Robin, the latter looks like an effing Stanley Kubrick film compared to this trainwreck!
With Quest For Peace, this represented Superman at his absolute low point back in 1987. Not only was this when audience stop caring about Superman but even Warner Bros themselves stopped caring for him too. This was so bad that it had take nearly 20 years for Superman to returned to the big screen because of how much this film (and the previous one) had tarnished his reputation! What an absolutely crappy end to easily the best Superman ever in Christopher Reeve!
8.) Justice League (2017)
It’s unbelievable how not only the first ever live-action Justice League movie doesn’t work, but it has to be one of the most forgettable superhero movies ever made. It’s clear that Warner Bros and company where so caught off guard over the backlash that Dawn of Justice received that they brought in Joss Whedon, after Snyder stepped down in part due to the passing of his daughter, in the hopes of providing the same spark he gave to The Avengers. Not only is that course correction painfully obvious on screen but mixing the visions of Whedon and Snyder could not have led to more disastrous results.
This is like the equivalent of a superb Japanese anime getting butchered in the English version by 4Kids, filled with jarring editing, censoring, and scripting to make it more “kid” friendly. Justice League (2017) (also known as JOSStice League) comes across as more of a straight-to-dvd Avengers knock-off that you would find at the bargain bin at the Dollar Store than an actual Justice League movie. The tone is all over the place, the reshoots are as clear as daylight it’s embarrassing, and it’s edited into incredibly bite sized pieces that you can tell were only done just so the movie can finish under two hours.
A handful of moments (or at least the ones I can remember) are cool in their own right (It’s always cool to see Wonder Woman on screen saving people) and is is nice to see Henry Cavill represent a bit of Christopher Reeves here (despite it making no sense in the context of the universe) but it’s incredibly unforgiveable just how cheap, hollow, and unmemorable this whole experience is. When even a remix of Danny Elfman’s iconic Batman theme can’t win me over, you know your movie has failed!
7.) Superman III
You ever heard of the term “third time’s the charm”? Well, that is CERTAINLY not how you can describe Supes’ third official film! Superman III was basically when the Superman franchise started to lose all of the hearts and wonders that it had from the beginning and started to descend to what it was never suppose to be. While the previous film had major behind the scenes drama that it was able to greatly overcome, the threequel with the man of tomorrow does the exact opposite of that.
Instead of having heart and wonder, it’s now just gags and slap stick. Instead of having important social/political commentary that resembles the world of Superman perfectly, it’s now just mindless action and explosion everywhere. Instead of intimidating villains that pose a real threat to our heroes, they are now just cartoon characters that you can’t take seriously. Instead of being smart, it’s now a self-parody! Putting all of this crap together, you get a complete mess in Superman III!
It’s hard to tell if how much of the studio politics played into the decision making of the film, how much of the film was what Lester wanted, and/or if this film would have even been made at all if Warner Bros wasn’t able to overpay Christopher Reeve to get him to come back, but Superman III follows victim to many disappointing threequels out there, forgetting what made it’s franchise successful in the first place and crushing the entire foundation in the process. What makes this third chapter stink more than most of them though is it’s lack of desire to be as engaging, interesting, or entertaining as the previous two Superman films were! That’s what you get when you become a self-parody!
6.) Man of Steel
The DC Extended Universe kicked off in 2013 with one of the most polarizing superhero movies of all time in Man of Steel. Looking back on it nearly a full decade later, I can’t help but have INCREDIBLY frustrating emotions when it comes to this film. In terms of casting, tone, action scale, scope, and score, this is everything that a modern Superman movie should consist off. However, when it comes to the overall story, characterization, script, and structure, it misses the mark completely!
Most of the characters come off as plot devices and motivation for Superman than actual characters, the dialogue strikes a fine line between being poetic/inspiring and just plain pretentious, and it’s overall themes feel not so much explored but just told directly to the audiences. The action is dynamic, the cast do great with what they have to work with, and the scope and Han Zimmer’s soundtrack are off the charts that it’s almost good enough to convince you that you are watching a much better film than you actually are! The elements that work are absolutely great while the elements that don’t work really bring down the whole picture.
When looking at it’s own thing and the seeds it plants for the future, Man of Steel could have been considered a solid re-introduction to the character of Superman and one that could successfully redefined Superman to a new generation. However, due to it’s shortcomings and the movies which came after tripling down on the things that don’t work rather than what does, you can’t help but see wasted potential. As it’s own thing, Man of Steel might be functional on a surface level but not on a depth level. Henry Cavill deserved better than this!
5.) Superman Returns
I’ve always had a complicated history with Superman Returns. It was the very first Superman movie I had ever watch from beginning to end. I couldn’t help but hate this movie and find myself hating Superman as a result. I just couldn’t fully buy into a superhero that’s all “Mr. Goody Two Shoes” and only has any important use as Superman but NOT Clark Kent. However, now that nearly two decades have passed by and seeing more bleak portrayals of the character as both a definite version and as a self-parody (A.K.A. Homelander from The Boys), I can’t help but have more respect in the way that Superman Returns portrays Superman.
It feels refreshing to see a film that is the cinematic equivalent of Superman/Clark being a friendly guy who saves people. It’s feels refreshing to see a Superman that always looks for the good in people and not just assumes the worst. It feels refreshing to see Superman have his own unique abilities and weaknesses without making him completely perfect. More importantly, it feels refreshing to see a Superman that completely embodies truth and justice. For all of the flaws that can be said for Superman Returns, this is the one element I can completely get behind. This might’ve not been the kind of Superman I (along with many others) was looking for back in 2006 but in the year 2025, I most certainly support it.
It’s unfortunate tho that Superman Returns is still a frustratingly mixed bag. It crosses the fine line between ambition and aimlessness by waiting to be the faithful third chapter to Christopher Reeve’s Superman that Superman III wasn’t while also wanting to work at it’s own standalone Superman film set in the 21st century. In so doing so, it undermines itself by failing to advance the characters the way they were back in the early 1980s and making them work in their own rights in the mid 2000s. With that amount of disconnect in terms of narrative, continuity to the prior movies, lack of action (outside of the amazing plane sequence) and failing to find an overall identity for itself along with the complete lack of action, Returns ultimately falls short of it’s notable good intensions.
4.) Zack Snyder’s Justice League
Because we live in some dark and twisted form of an alternate universe, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is a real thing now. Truth be told, even if you remove yourself from the toxicity that is the Zack Snyder fanbase (I won’t blame you if you can’t!), it’s actually pretty good with a lot more to like here than there is to hate. This is probably the one movie in the DC Extended Universe with Zack Snyder that doesn’t feel overly pretentious but more of just the man wanting to make the most epic Justice League movie he can possibly make. For the most part, he succeeds even if some of the faults from his other films are carried over here.
The first half is way too stretched out for it’s own good, feeling like Snyder is trying to get every single little frame of work that he desires in there regardless if it actually serves a purpose. There’s also the final fifteen minutes that feels more like a collection of post credit scenes rather than an actual epilogue. Even so, there’s good action set pieces, a nice & riveting score, memorable gorgeous visuals, and solid character interactions between all of the Justice League members, with Wonder Woman and Cyborg being the main standouts. And this also feels like the first time in Snyder’s films that the superheroes on screen actually act and feel like superheroes instead of just being all sad and mopey all the time. What a time to be alive!
While there’s still faults from the theatrical cut that are carried over here (*cough* Steppenwolf and Flash *cough*), this is certainly an improvement over the theatrical cut and should most certainly be considered the actual definite version of Justice League. If anything, this was about the closest that Snyder got to making a faithful and truthful Superman. At least here, he actually feels like a superhero that wants the best for humanity and now…..whatever the hell the previous two films portrayed him as. Warts and all, this is easily the best DC superhero film that Zack Snyder has ever made!
3.) Superman (2025)
At long last, James Gunn has arrived to save the day with his own take on Superman while also aiming to give DC a second leash on live with a rebooted cinematic universe, formerly known as the DC Universe. The good news is that Mr. Gunn is able to provide a Superman that not only resembles the character for who he is suppose to be at his core but also feels timely and warranted in our own bitter, cynical world we inhabit in today. The bad news is by wanting to start a cinematic universe here, it shows distinct cracks in the armor by overstuffing the film with multiple characters and subplots that don’t always work to their fullest potential.
The cast is all near perfect (the main trio of David Corneswet’s Clark Kent, Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois Lane & Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor could not have played off each other better), the tone feels right at home with classic Superman, the spectacle is cool, and it even has those traditional superhero elements from earlier superhero films such as Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (Lighthearted feel, comic book-like features, colorful superheroes, and an engaging romance) that I have missed in these kinds of movies for so long. However, the plot itself feels very overstuffed, with too many ideas and subject matter it wants to tackle all at once while feeling the need to shoehorned supporting characters that while cool, really don’t serve much purpose other than to set them up for future films and shows. It almost feels as if Gunn was forced by studios to cut down on the runtime so there could be more screenings, with the film lacking the extra 15 to 20 minutes it could have REALLY used.
Even so, Superman (2025) still presents us a Superman we can get behind and absolutely root for, acting as the perfect counter-culture hero who values kindness in a world that no longer calls for that. And after over a decade of Superman portrayals that have ranged from him being moody and depressed to being flat out evil, it’s more than refreshing to see Superman here being someone that represents hope, optimism, and has absolutely NO agenda other than wanting to be a good person that saves people. If that’s not how Superman should be, then I don’t know what is.
2.) Superman II
It’s nearly impossible to look at Superman II on it’s own terms when you take into account all of the behind-the-scenes drama that plagued it’s development. From director changes to studio interference to creative indifferences, the sequel to it’s largely successful 1978 game changing predecessor could’ve been dead on arrival. Yet, somehow and someway, Superman was able to prevail once again despite having basically everything stacked against him.
This is still able to continue to story of Clark Kent/Superman in a very respectful way, showcasing a vulnerable side of Clark in which he is forced to continue his life without his super powers, something which superhero films such as Spider-Man 2 took clearly inspiration from. The action scenes still hold up well, Zod makes for a very worthy foe to Superman, there’s plenty of nice humor thrown in, and there’s several emotional beats that pay off as well as it can. It’s just a shame that it’s hard to get the complete full picture of the “perfect” version of Superman II due to it’s troubled production and director changes.
I will say despite the two different versions of Superman II that I’ve seen, my opinion on the film is largely the same. In the sense, that it’s a very, VERY good sequel that perhaps falls JUST of the greatness the original film had, largely due to these conflicting directorial visions and feeling the need to pull it’s punches more times than not. Had we got one complete version from either Richard Donner or Richard Lester from beginning of production to the very end, then I think we could have a film that was even better than Superman: The Movie. Even so, I still would consider it to be the second best Superman movie to date and a worthy sequel to the original overall.
1.) Superman (1978)
Before the likes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and the multiple DC Cinematic universe attempts, even before the likes of Blade (1998), X-Men (2000), and Spider-Man (2002) rolled around, and even before Tim Burton’s or Joel Schumacher’s Batman made their ways onto the scene, there was one superhero movie that stood proudly on his own. Not only working as a near perfect example of what a superhero movie should consist of but it set the template and tropes on how a superhero movie or even a blockbuster in general should operated. That one film I’m talking about is no other than Superman (1978), directed by Richard Donner and played by the OG Superman himself, Christopher Reeves.
No matter what way you look at, Superman (1978) works in nearly every single way in which it was suppose to. The origin of seeing Clark Kent’s journey to becoming Superman is perfectly handled, every member of the cast fits their roles like a glove and acts as the definite versions of their characters, the themes and messages still resonate, the pacing takes it’s time but it always makes it worth it, the musical score by the legendary John Williams is excellent, and I imagine there was just no special feeling than seeing Superman fly around and saving people on screen for the first time ever back in 1978.
Superman (1978) was the superhero movie that changed everything! It proved that a film based off of a comic book superhero can work and translate onto the big screen as well as it possibly can. It proved that big cinematic experiences of this kind can be just as compelling as say a giant space opera or an intense thriller involving a big shark. And most importantly, it proved that comic books and superheroes can shine a very bright light on pop culture, telling stories with impactful themes and unforgettable role models that anyone can look up to (No pun intended!)! Because of all and so much more, Superman (1978) is still the best Superman film ever made and one of the best superhero movies of all time period!
Well, that title is certainly quite the click-bait, isn’t it?!
I do wanna make something clear that when I claim that Man of Steel is a Superman made for a “modern audience”, I am NOT referring to THAT kind of “modern audience”, A.K.A. the one that gets described in this current day and age, particularly by a certain OBNXIOUS movie review who shall NOT be named! But…..if you know, you know!
Back in 2013, the term, “modern audience” meant a very different thing. It didn’t mean so much about changing classic IPs to align a proper race/gender ratio and what was considered to be the “correct” politics back in the early 2010s but more of finding a way to gain a new generation of fans by updating classic IPs to have them fit in the so-called “modern” era.
In the case of Man of Steel, it attempts to update Superman in a way that removes itself from the light heart, campy days of Christopher Reeve and lean more into the dark, gritty, and realistic nature of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. This was a move that I imagine was done to try to capitalize on the success of those three Batman films, along with promoting Christopher Nolan’s involvement as co-writer and executive producer to boost ticket sales.
It’s also worth mentioning about the complicated development history of Man of Steel. Originally, the film was meant to act as a full-on reboot and as it’s own standalone film, hoping it’s success would lead to MoS as being Part 1 of a new Superman trilogy after Superman Returns turned out to be such a massive disappointment. However, during the film’s development, Marvel’s The Avengers released worldwide and it ended up being an absolute (No pun intended!) Hulk smash hit! And after numerous of failed attempts at starting their own cinematic universe of superheroes with the likes of Superman Returns and more recently Green Lantern (Don’t remind Ryan Reynolds of that!), DC and Warner Bros decided that they wanted Man of Steel to act as the launching pad for their brand new DC Extended Universe, finally finding their answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
However, instead of being lighthearted and comedic like most of the films under the Marvel Studios’ umbrella are, they wanted this universe to be more dark, gritty, and realistic in terms of tone and feel. Not only because they just didn’t want to blatantly copy and paste the same tone and feel that Marvel has but that was what also what made DC superhero films stand out on their own compared to Marvel for better or worse. And considering that DC and WB was coming straight off of The Dark Knight films, pretty much their only notable film successes with comic book superheroes in recent memory, they clearly wanted to ride that train as much as they can in the hopes of acting as a perfect countermeasure to Marvel.
Because of that, Man of Steel became not just the beginning of this newest iteration of Clark Kent/Superman played by Henry Cavill but also the new age of DC films from here on out. Because back in the 2010s, literally EVERYTHING had to be a cinematic universe or else you just didn’t get with the program. Regardless of the end results of this particularly cinematic universe over a decade later, I think it’s important to look at this film as it’s own thing like it was originally intended to. Was Zack Snyder able to make Superman work in the year 2013 and be able to bring in a new “modern” audience for the man of tomorrow? Well……it’s complicated!
It’s no secret that Man of Steel was one of the most polarizing superhero films of all time when it came out 12 years ago and it’s still highly debated to this very day. From it’s more broody tone to it’s gloriously excessive actions to the way it’s tells it’s story and some of the narrative/character choices the film makes, it has certainly left PLENTY of room for discussion among fans, critics, and the general audience. And I think a good majority of that has to do with the changes made to the source material in order to have Superman fit in the more “modern” times.
Instead of having a Superman sticking to his morals of hope and optimism, you now have a Superman that dares to question his morals and feels more grim than hopeful about the way he goes about his superhero ways. Instead of having a Clark Kent that is able to adjust to the modern world smoothly with only a handful of critics against him, you now have a Clark Kent that is unable to adjust to the modern world because almost everybody hates him since he’s an alien and not human. Instead of having a Man of Tomorrow that is able to preserve collateral damage and saves civilians lives at every turn, you now have a Man of Tomorrow that causes so much destruction and chaos while only saving a civilian if they are in his way or just happens to bump into one that is in danger. While these changes might fit for a “modern” take on Superman, it’s not one that seems to fit with the character’s overall history.
And of course, you also have the most controversial decision made in the film. Instead of having a Superman that has a moral stance against killing no matter what, you now have a Superman that goes as far as to kill his main opponent because he believes there could be no other outcome except that.
When looking at those factors, this can be seen as quite a betrayal for what Superman stands for. Man of Steel doesn’t so much feel like it’s trying to honor the Superman mythos but more trying to deconstruct and dissect it, given the impression that it’s deeper and more mature than your typical superhero flick when it’s really not. It’s a film that can be seen as mistaking dourness and pro-faced seriousness for depth and nuance. It’s a world that feels too much of a bleak reflection off our current world rather than it’s own unique world for Superman. This is a Superman that has more in line with Homelander from The Boys before Homelander from The Boys was even a thing.
The thing is though is that it COULD’VE gotten away from this if they tried. If they were able to use this dark and broody approach of Superman to have him become brighter and more hopeful by the end of the film. If they were able to use it’s massive scope and action sequences to deliver real stakes and hard hitting character moments. If they were able to use it’s motivational speeches and lines from the trailer to have it actually mean something in the grand scheme of things. If they were able to use it’s dark tone and feel for a purpose and not just because……that’s what The Dark Knight did. If they were able to deconstruct and dissect the traditional Superman mythos while also remember to put the pieces back into place.
And make no mistake, there are PLENTY of standout moments in Man of Steel where you can see that potential. You got the modern technology that’s able to deliver the Dragon Ball Z-like fights scenes that die hard fans have always dreamed off seeing on the big screen. You got a cast full of immensely talented cast that feel right for their roles. You got a grand musical score in Han Zimmer that gives the film it’s own gloom yet beautiful beating heart to it, almost feeling like it’s own character. You even got a structure which if done right, could be a fresh and inventive way of telling a Superman origin story that has been told many times over, having Batman Begins be to origin stories what Into the Spider-Verse has been to animation!
When it comes to elements such as action, scale, scope, casting, score, special effects, and ideas in terms of narrative, this is everything that a modern Superman film should consist off. And if we are to grade this film strictly from a technical and sound perspective, this should be the perfect Superman film for a “modern” audience. The kind of film that not only gains a new legion of fans but inspires a generation of upcoming filmmakers and lovers of superheroes to make their own work based off the man of tomorrow! The kind of film that would make the O.G. Clark Kent, Christopher Reeve, the O.G. Lois Lane, Margot Kiddler, and the O.G. Superman behind the camera himself, Richard Donner, very proud! Unfortunately, aside from an INCREDIBLY diehard fanbase/cult that Zack Snyder has gain over the years, Man of Steel fails to live up to those ideals that it DESEPREATELY wants to strive towards.
While nearly everything from the technical side of things, sound and audio side of things, acting side of things, and action/scale side of things are aces, the overall story and script leaves PLENTY to be desired. Most of the characters come off as plot devices and motivation for Superman than actual characters, the dialogue strikes a fine line between being poetic/inspiring and just being plain pretentious, the way it’s tell it’s origin story feels so disjointed and scattershot because it’s being told in non-chronologically, and it’s overall themes feel not so much explored but just told directly to the audiences, given the impression that the film thinks it’s too “smart” for it’s audience. It has all the elements that makes for an amazing trailer but NOT for an amazing film.
That’s might be just why I was actually quite a big fan of this film when I first saw it back in 2013. I SAW the potential when watching it with my very eyes on the big screen. I was blown away by the visuals, inspired by the quotes made for the trailers, was thrilled by the non-stop action and explosions, and found the morals to be interpreted in a way that I always imagined a modern Superman film should consist of. And because of that, I wore rose-colored glasses the whole way through because I just assumed I didn’t actually need to critique or analyze because well….the film was too smart for me that I didn’t think I needed to bother.
That is also why the more I’ve thought about Man of Steel over the years and the more times I’ve gone back and rewatched it, it…….kinda gets worse for me. Once I’m able to take those rose-colored glasses off, all I see are amazing concepts, ideas, and potential that is never has fully utilized as well as it should be. It’s a film full of eye popping moments but not one that commits to being a consistent narrative or a grand vision of it’s own. It’s a film that is loaded with action but fails to deliver consequential stakes due to Superman and Zod being practically invisible and the film failing to make the city of Metropolis and it’s people it’s own distinct character. It’s a film that has inspirational quotes and lines of dialogue that don’t amount anything to the story or characters. It’s a film that thinks it’s being faithful to Superman while also wanting to critique him in ways that I don’t think the filmmakers intended. Quite simply, it falls short of it’s ambition.
If there is one thing that I think anyone can agree upon regarding this film is that Man of Steel should NOT have been a film that kicked off a new DC universe with. It’s bizarre tone and feel is NOT one that can work as a consistent one for an entire cinematic universe of cinematic storytelling. Plus, Zack Snyder up to that point (and even now) has been quite a divisive filmmaker with an incredibly distinct vision that isn’t really appealing to mainstream audiences. Up to that point, the only film in Snyder’s filmography that had great appeal to mainstream audiences was his 2005 remake of Dawn of the Dead, which was also co-written by James Gunn (Don’t tell the Snyder bros that!).
This is honestly why I believe Man of Steel should have taken place in it’s own universe with Superman without any ties to the other DC characters. Similar to that of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and Matt Reeve’s Batman universe, the world of Man of Steel should have been one that should have existed in it’s own terms and merits, being able to explore it’s ideas and concepts with multiple films and potential spin-offs. Plus, it’s more bleak and somber tone could’ve been one that worked more comfortably with more limited installments instead of with a whole decades worth of superhero cinematic content with different characters and stories.
If it was given a chance to be it’s own thing while also having planted seeds of it’s own that it was able to grow upon with future standalone Superman sequels, Man of Steel could have been seen as a grand re-introduction to the character of Superman and one that could successfully redefined Superman to a new generation the same way that Christopher Nolan did with Batman. However, due to it’s shortcomings, it’s obligation to start a new DC universe, and the follow-ups which came after tripling down on the things that don’t work rather than what does, you can’t help but see wasted potential. As it’s own thing, Man of Steel is functional on a surface level but not on a depth level.
I sure hope now that James Gunn is taking over Superman and is looking to create a new generation of Superman fans of it’s own, I sure hope he is able to learn from Zack Snyder’s shortcoming here. Make sure you know EXACTLY the kind of film you are making and the message you are trying to convey to the audience! If you are gonna create a new version of Superman for a “modern” audience, make sure to at LEAST capture the spirit of what the character has always stand for and only make changes that fit with the overall narrative and not ones for the sake of change!
Make those same mistakes and we might have another Man of Steel on our hands!
It took nearly two decades but Superman finally returned onto the big screen in 2006 with Superman Returns. Coming off the cinematic disaster that was Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, DC and Warner Bros seemed to have no clue how in the world to tackle Superman in cinematic form. After the flame with the Christopher Reeve run as Superman died out, it seemed like no one would be excited for a new Superman movie ever again. Sure, there was a handful of famous cartoons, straight-to-DVD animated movies, and at least one video game (*cough* Superman 64 *cough*) but in terms of cinematics, it felt like a near impossible task to get Superman back onto the big screen in a post-Christopher Reeve world.
However, 19 years later, they were able to give it another shot. Directing this time around was no other than Bryan Singer, who have just come off his own recent comic book success with the first two X-Men films and even jumped ship on the third one strictly for Superman. And Clark Kent himself would be played by Brandon Routh, who was able to beat out Henry Cavill in auditions, the man who would later become the next Superman seven years later in Man of Steel.
Although, things would be different than the prior Superman movies. This would introduce a brand new Superman and a brand new actor playing him but it wouldn’t be strictly a reboot or remake. This would introduce a more warm and mature tone that wouldn’t match the optimistic and lighthearted feel of the former Superman movies nor the dark and bleak feel of what the latter Superman movies would be like. Most importantly, this would act as it’s own version of Superman 3 & 4, retconning Superman III and Superman IV entirely, but would also be set in it’s own distinct timeline with enough distance from the very first two Superman movies in order to fit into the current climate of when this film came out.
If that sounds like a jumbling mess to you, that’s because it absolutely is. Superman Returns is a film with a clear identity crisis. It’s unsure of how far it wants to go with respecting the past that’s it unable to blaze towards it’s own future. It wants to stand strictly on it’s own terms, being able to properly introduce Superman to an audience who weren’t alive during the Christopher Reeve days, but also wants to act as it’s own version of Superman III, in order to appeal to the longtime fans that had been waiting nearly two decades for a new Superman movie. And the inconsistency on display can be seen within the characters themselves and their connections to the first two movies.
Like if this is suppose to be a sequel to the first two movies, then why have this movie be set in the 2000s? How does Lois Lane still not know Clark Kent is Superman when she literally had his kid? Didn’t she find out Supe’s identity in Superman II? Plus, why does she look 10X younger than Margot Kiddler? As a matter of fact, why does everyone else look younger here than they did FIVE years ago?! Why would Superman go AWOL for five years looking for a remaining Kryptonians when he had already accepted their fates over two movies ago after beating Zod? How is it that Lex Luthor is just NOW getting released from prison at around the exact same time that Superman comes back? And do I even need to mention all the 2000s era product placement that practically breaks the timeline of this movie when you so much as breath on it?
It’s frustrating because on paper, a proper redo of the last two Superman movies could make for a bittersweet bow tie of the original Superman era while also making away for a brand new path. It could make for a nice “fixing the past to make for a better future” franchise metaphor that was the driving for for Bryan Singer’s very next superhero film he would direct with X-Men: Days of Future Past. Giving Brandon Routh his own Superman that captures the spirit of Christopher Reeves Superman and then be giving the chance to shine in his own spotlight in the future would have made for a nice passing of the touch between generational Superman actors. Unfortunately, because the continuity is so messed up and the characters feel so inconsistent compared to prior movies, the big emotional connection just doesn’t work here.
The other issue among the film is the desire to move away from being a typical summer blockbuster action flick. Because of that, this film is very light on action. The most memorable standout action sequences include the famous plane scene, Superman stopping bullets being shot at him, and the sequences where Lex and his goons beat up a wounded Superman. Aside from that, outside of your traditional flying sequences and brief moments where Superman saves some people, this is probably the Superman film with the least amount of action, a criticism that Man of Steel would later take and completely overdo the action as a result. This wouldn’t be so bad if at least everything else was engaging and exciting but it just isn’t.
Which is all frustrating because I do think this film does represent the perfect balance between the tone of the Christopher Reeve films and Henry Cavil films. It’s able to not be too campy and over-the-top that plagued the last two Superman films but also not be way too dark, somber, and bleak that sunk the very next Superman film. It has perhaps the most mature tone out of all the Superman movies to date, a tone that hopefully James Gunn is able to recapture with his own film coming out next week. When folks wonder what kind of tone and feel that they want in a modern Superman film, I’m pretty sure they would say this tone is a direct answer. In that case, I would agree entirely.
I’ve always had a complicated history with Superman Returns. It was the very first Superman movie I had ever watch from beginning to end. Because of that, I couldn’t help but hate this movie and find myself hating Superman as a result. I just couldn’t fully buy into a superhero that’s all “Mr. Goody Two Shoes” and only has any important use as Superman but NOT Clark Kent. If he doesn’t have superpowers, he can’t do anything. The main sequence of the film that showcases that is when Lex and his guards beat up Superman, stabbed him, and forces him off a cliff, presumably killing him. However, now that nearly two decades have passed by and seeing more bleak portrayals of the character as both a definite version and as a self-parody (take Homelander from The Boys), I can’t help but have more respect in the way that Superman Returns portrays Superman.
It’s feels refreshing to see a film that is the cinematic equivalent of Superman/Clark being a friendly guy who saves people. It’s feels refreshing to see a Superman that always looks for the good in people and not that just assumes the worst. It feels refreshing to see Superman have his own unique abilities and weaknesses without making him completely perfect. More importantly, it feels refreshing to see a Superman that completely embodies truth and justice. For all of the flaws that can be said for Superman Returns, this is the one element I can completely get behind. This might’ve not been the kind of Superman I (along with many others) was looking for back in 2006 but in the year 2025, I most certainly support it.
Much like many Superman films that have come after the first two Reeve films, Superman Returns is a frustrating mixed bag. It crosses the fine line between ambition and aimlessness by waiting to be the faithful third chapter to Christopher Reeve’s Superman that Superman III wasn’t but in so doing so, undermines itself by failing to advance the characters the way they were back in the early 1980s while also wanting to be a standalone film that’s set in the 2000s. With that amount of disconnect in terms of narrative and overall identity for itself along with the complete lack of action, Superman Returns ultimately falls short of it’s notable good intensions.
That being said, I still am grateful that this film exists. Not just because this was my introduction to Superman (even if it wasn’t a great one when I first watched it), but because it shows that it is possible to adapt Superman in the 21st century as a noble man with good intentions and not just as another Batman clone. And if what we are seeing and hearing about James Gunn’s Superman is any indication, we might just be getting the best possible version of that!
Can you believe it’s already been 15 (!!) years since 2010?! I remember that year like it was yesterday!
2010 was the year of many things for me! It was when I became an official teenager, it was when I became more social and open with the public, it was when I got introduced into a brand new decade, and of course, it was when I discover my passion for films, art, and cinema! That’s right! 2010 was officially the year which I got into movies!
It’s not that I NEVER got into movies beforehand or didn’t enjoying going to see them in movie theaters (or at least before I watch The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie for the first time in theaters back in 2005) but the very beginning of the 2010s was where movies became my official hobby and #1 source for entertainment!
And I believe the main reason why 2010 was the year which got me interested in movies has to do with the number of FANTASTIC films that came out that year! And considering the fact this particular year offer so much great cinema just RIGHT after a massive strike that crumbled the industry for a short period of time, I don’t think you could’ve ask 2010 for a better year of movies than what it offered!
To celebrate this magnificent year of motion pictures, I’m gonna share my picks for the top 15 films that came out in 2010! Not strictly a top 10 but a top 15! It was just THAT good of a year for films!
However, before I get on with that! Here are at least ten honorable mentions:
Honorable Mentions:
Animal Kingdom
Batman: Under The Red Hood
Easy A
Hot Tub Time Machine
Incendies
The Kids Are All Right
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’hoole
Megamind
Salt
Shutter Island
And now!
15.) Let Me In
While there are those that remember Matt Reeves fondly for his work on Felicity, Cloverfield,The Batman, and some of the recent Planet of the Apes films, his 2010 remake of Let Me In should NOT go unnoticed whatsoever. This is an excessively bleak, gory, and tragic tale of a boy and a vampire, while also leaning into themes surrounding childhood trauma, first love, and losing one’s own humanity to the cruel nature of life itself. While some might find the film too slow for their likings, those that are patient and support a good slow burn film will find plenty to enjoy here.
14.) Buried
Yeah, to those that claim that Ryan Reynolds has no range as an actor and can only play Deadpool in every movie he is in, you might want to watch this movie and shut the HELL up! If you want to watch a film that PERFECTLY captures the cluster phobic horrors of being trapped and buried alive in a log cabin box with only 90 minutes given to possibly get yourself out of it, look no further than Buried! Despite it taking place in only one location, this is able to be bold, inventive, and have you thinking just pure seconds after the credits roll! If only Mr. Blake Lively would take more roles like this in the future!
13.) Winter’s Bone
If it wasn’t her role as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games or Mystique in X-Men: First Class that got you into Jennifer Lawrence, there’s a good chance that Winter’s Bone was the film that did just that. It’s JLaw’s sensitive, striped-down performance that’s full of strength and sincerity which acts as the pure heart of this film. Lifted by non-stop tension, a compelling character-driven plot, and top-tier writing to boost it up a notch, Winter’s Bone is an engagingly bleak drama that is carried by one exceptionally great performance from it’s lead!
12.) The Town
Ben Affleck was able to make a stellar first performance behind the director’s chair with 2007’s Gone Baby Gone. He was able to carry his potential behind the camera and not just in front of it with ease with The Town. This is a film that just hits all the beats it needs to make for a really well made and thought out crime drama epic! It’s thoroughly entertaining, the cast is perfect, and every scene involving action and drama is done masterfully. While not quite my favorite movie directed by Mr. Affleck, The Town makes for one worthy addition to the man directorial collection!
11.) The Fighter
If there is one thing I love more than a good underdog story, that would be a good underdog story involving sports. The Fighter is a great underdog boxing drama that grounds itself through the point of a view of a rather dysfunctional family. With well developed and engaging characters, spot-on direction, a compelling narrative the whole way through that includes proper stakes, this film makes for one emotional gut punch that sticks with you from beginning to end. And this also happens to be the one film I actually enjoyed made by the one director who shall NOT be named!
10.) True Grit (2010)
I don’t who convinced who to give The Coen Brothers as $170 million dollar budget to make a remake for True Grit but I’m sure glad they did because this made for quite a standout remake in all of the best ways possible. Acting as a well-made and compelling spaghetti western, a faithful adaption of it’s source material and a remake that more than justifies it’s existence, True Grit shows The Coen Brothers at their absolute best and the most engaging to a mainstream audience. And who would ever guess in a million years that a 13-year old Hailee Steinfeld would act circles around legends such as Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin?! Even if you are one of those “remake bad” folks, the 2010 remake of True Grit is one that might just impress you!
9.) Kick-Ass
Before Deadpool was able to change the scenery for Marvel and comic book movies by giving the greenlight to studios to make their superheroes, there was Kick-Ass that was able to carry that slack before the merc with the mouth did. This is a comic book adaption that is able to make it’s edgy and rather meanspirited material and added a bit of heart and fulfilled enjoyment to it! And for as cool as Aaron Taylor Johnson is in the titled role, it’s Nicolas Cage and Chloe Grace Moretz that steals the show completely as the father-and-daughter superhero duo. Even if there are times where the film can get too nihilistic, this is still a complete blast and makes for an absolute must watch for fans of comic book movies and superheroes.
8.) 127 Hours
It’s quite simple! You either want to see James Franco getting his arm stuck in a boulder and trapped for 100 minutes until he is forced to cut it off completely or you don’t! If you do, there’s a truly remarkable story to be witnessed about a real guy who was forced to no give up on himself even when odds were all completely against them! If you don’t, well……at least you get to see James Franco cut his arm off! Or better yet, you can just watch Deadpool do it himself in his own feature film! Regardless, for it’s thin yet realistic premise, 127 Hours is about as good as it can possibly be!
7.) Tangled
If I had to pick one movie that feels like it truly belongs in the Renaissance Era of Disney and up there with the likes of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin,Mulan, and any other top-tier Disney animation feature, that would be Tangled. You got amazing animation, a really well thought out and heartfelt story, some refreshing spins on the traditional Disney fairytales, superb character development with Rapunzel and Flynn Rider, great voice work from Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi, hilarious animal sidekicks, and songs that are both memorable and extremely catchy. Even some of the minor things I can nitpick at (such as the somewhat obvious villain reveal) can’t bring it down because even then, there’s enough interesting things done with those so it’s hard to complain. Nearly everything about Tangled works and makes for an instant Disney classic!
6.) Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
For as much as it was unfortunate that Edgar Wright was unable to make the Ant-Man movie he wanted with Marvel Studios, we should all be grateful he was able to make a own magnum opus of his own within the comic book movie genre with Scott Pilgrim Vs The World. This was quite simply a comic book movie that Edgar Wright was born to make! His directing style and visuals fit masterfully in the world of Scott Pilgrim, the whole cast is perfect and fit their roles like a glove, the soundtrack is incredible, and don’t get me started on those kick-ass and creative as hell fight sequences! If there is one comic book film without a Marvel or DC logo that deserves it’s recognition and appreciation for it’s place within the realm of comic book movies, that would be Scott Pilgrim Vs The World!
5.) How To Train Your Dragon
On paper, How To Train Your Dragon movie seems like every traditional hero journey and human-animal bonding flick you have ever seen. However, not only does it do just about all of those traditions so well, it’s done in an extraordinary way that it feels like you are watching this story on fold for the very first time. Hiccup makes for a very likeable protagonist that’s easy to root for and his relationship between his pet dragon, Toothless, and his soon-to-be lover/partner in Astrid are so engaging, acting as the beating heart of the film. And don’t get me started on it’s stellar animation and flying sequences that blew my mind when seeing it in theaters and still blows my mind to this day. How To Train Your Dragon is prove that just because you are telling a familiar story does NOT mean you have to tell it in a familiar way. If you add enough freshness and novelty to it where it feels like you are seeing this story being told for the first time ever, then you have succeeded entirely.
4.) Black Swan
As all over in the place Darren Aronofsky can be in terms of quality, when he hits, he hits about as hard as 90% of directors in Hollywood! Simultaneously gorgeous, haunting, and at times erotic, Black Swan is an excellent psychological thriller that is aided by chilling imagery, superb directing, excellent cinematography, a multilayer and complex script, a mesmerizing score, and two outstanding performances from Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. It’s a film that I don’t want to spoil much of because anyone who still hasn’t seen it yet should go into it COMPLETELY blind. But for those poor souls that still have yet to check this masterwork out, watch Black Swan ASAP!
3.) The Social Network
Acting as a defining, generational milestone of filmmaking, The Social Network is able to be as engaging and increasingly relevant at every single turn of it’s length. One of the most narratively innovative screenplays of the 21st century that is able to execute nearly every single idea/concept in it’s head to the swiftest brush level of perfection as you could get. You have a director in David Fincher at the top of his game here, you have a cast, especially Jessie Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield, that give it their all, and it is disturbing to see how Facebook is still able to impact our daily social lives in the best and worst ways possible. I know the term modern classic gets thrown a lot nowadays but The Social Network is one of the rare exceptions where it earns that term in every way imaginable. The fact this is only #3 on this list goes to show just how complete MASTERPIECES these next two are to me!
2.) Toy Story 3
If you want to talk about Pixar being at the absolute TOP of their game, the best example of that is with Toy Story 3. There is just no other Pixar film that hits me, moved me, entertained me, and satisfied me more than this one. Acting as a perfect culmination of the entire Toy Story franchise up to this point, Toy Story 3 is a perfect showcase of what happens when the kids grow up and are ready to move on to other things. It’s all about learning to let go of the past and embracing the future while also never forgetting the fond memories that you made along the way. It’s able to be the funniest, darkest, and most emotional of all the Toy Story movies, the stakes are at their highest and feels the most personal, it has perhaps the best villain in all of Pixar with incredibly misfit Lotso, and who can forget the final sequence that made grown men and women bawl like a baby! Taking at it’s own unique thing, being an impactful film about growing up and evolution, Toy Story 3 is Pixar, animation, and cinema at it’s absolute finest!
1.) Inception
I always go back and forth on #1 and #2 depending on my mood but for right now, I’m gonna go with Inception as being the best film to come out of 2010. This is easily one of the very best sci films every made and one of the rare films where it’s brilliant ideas is able to be brilliantly executed in every possible way. The creativity on display is astonishing, the premise involving Inception is put to perfect use, the world building is some of the very best I’ve seen in any film, the action is top notch, the effects are breathtaking, the characters are all compelling and engaging, every actor is perfect in their roles, the score is absolutely mesmerizing, and it has one of the most satisfying endings I’ve seen in any film. This is one of the films where no matter how many times I watch it, I still get a fresh, unique, and intriguing experience that I got when I saw it in theaters for the first time back in 2010. This blew mind 15 years ago and it still blows my mind now. Perfectly written, acted, and directed, Inception is the best film of 2010 and one of my personal favorite films period!
Welp, this is about as bad as a Superman film can get! And about as bad as a superhero movie can get! And about as bad as well…..anything can get!
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace represented a complete rock bottom for not just Superman but the entire comic book movie genre up to that point! Even after the severely underperforming and poorly received Superman III, Warner Bros and DC still felt they could squeeze at least one more feature film with the man of tomorrow! The problem though is that the anticipation for a new Superman film was at an all time low in 1987!
Even though Alexander Salking and his son Ilya, the producers of the Superman series, was able to get the box office grosses they wanted from Superman III, there was very little enthusiasm from the cast and crew to do a fourth one. Christopher Reeve was hesitant on returning, they couldn’t get Richard Lester to come back, and the commercial failure of 1984’s Supergirl made the Salkings consider that perhaps this DC franchise had run its course. Regardless, they pushed through with another installment anyway!
Christopher Reeve was offered six million dollar signs from the studio to come back one more time, they were able to get Sidney J. Furie to take over the director’s chair (which originally went to Wes Craven before he dropped out due to him and Reeve not getting along), and decided that the whole story would be about Superman trying to solve the nuclear arm crisis from around the world, which was a major talking point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency throughout the 1980s. If even a word of what I just said sounds appealing to you, then I can assure you…..Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is anything BUT that!
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is not only what happens when a franchise stops caring but when the people involved don’t even try to hide the fact that they are not trying anymore! From the obvious green screen effects to the lazy editing to the phoned-in performances to the awful transaction from scene-to-scene, Quest For Peace is what you get when the people involved with it feels like nothing matters anymore! Throw in an absurdly stupid script that defies any sorts of logic, dialogue that had to make the actors themselves feel embarrassed to say out loud, and no sense of flow or rhythm in terms of pacing and structure and you get quite a shitty picture!
The biggest comparison of this complete low point of Superman could be to that of when Batman had his own low point with the abominable Batman & Robin (which would come out 10 years later after this movie). Just like that other notable DC cinematic disaster that came out in the 20th century, that also saw the titled character at his absolute low point, leading into becoming a full-on parody, adapting a “we don’t care how stupid and dumb this all is” mindset, and having the only goal from behind the scenes is to sell as many toys and action figures to children as possible. However, I think Superman IV leans much worse than that!
As much as both films can lean into the “so bad it’s good” category among the most memorable superhero movies, Batman and Robin seemed like a much more competent product compared to Supes’s own fourth movie. It had it’s handful of heartfelt moments (most notably that special scene between Bruce & Alfred), a unique visual vibe that’s full of bright lights and colors that makes the film look pretty to look at, and had such an bizarrely over-the-top campiness to it that you can help but be gloriously entertained by it. Superman IV has none of those unique traits whatsoever.
There are no moments of heart, no moments of genuine emotion, no interesting way of telling it’s story about it’s current topics surrounding global annihilation, and no menacing bad guys that feels like a legit threat to our heroes. All we get is a dull, lifeless, and cheap-looking trainwreck where the only parts of genuine entertainment are the moments that are downright awful so much so that it’s HILARIOUS!
I mean who didn’t get some laughs at some of the most RIDICULOUS moments scattered throughout the film! Remember all the flying sequences with Superman that looks like it was shot in a backyard? Or when Superman is able to gain new powers out of nowhere just because? Or when the main bad guy tells Superman that if he doesn’t tell where Lois is, then he will “hurt” people? And then proceeds to stand out and do a bunch of random stuff while Superman is just staying shouting, “STOP! DON’T DO IT! THE PEOPLE!” Or when Superman loses a battle because….the main villain….scratches him in the neck? Or how about just about any moment where Lex Luthor tries to pronounce the word, “nuclear”? Or how about the fact the whole reason Superman is doing anything in this movie at all is because……a kid wrote him a letter, asking Superman to get all the missiles in the world and get them off the planet, solving the nuclear crisis just…..like that?
Believe it or not, these are moments I honestly COULD forgive or just shake off as being pointless nitpicks if the rest of the film was actually engaging or interesting! But Superman IV is anything BUT that! Even Superman III, despite it’s severe flaws in terms of story and tone, was at least somewhat engaging because of the fact that something was ALWAYS going on that you couldn’t help but have your eyes on the screen because of that! With Superman IV, you basically have to cherry pick the moments that stand out in any way, shape, or form because nothing from the movie as a whole does!
It might seem like I’m beating a dead horse here but Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is just the worst kind of bad! It’s the kind of bad that has no substance, no memorability, no point, no care, and no matter in the world! It’s a film that not only doesn’t need to exist but it feels like even the cast and crew working on it don’t believe it needed to exist either! As we should all know by the now in the year of our lord 2025, nothing matter anymore and just embrace nihilism!
In all seriousness, it really is a shame that such an iconic cinematic figure like Christopher Reeve’s Superman had to go out on such an embarrassing low like A Quest For Peace! He will always be a legend and be remember as the definitive Clark Kent and Superman but these last two Superman films did not do him any truth or justice in any meaningful (or American) way. (Yes, I completely intended that pun!) I just wish he was given at least one more quality film that was able to send his version of Superman up in the air (I’m on a ROLL today!) for one last time!
Regardless, despite how abysmal this film is, how bad Superman III is, and how Superman II fell just short of greatness, Christopher Reeve will still always be Superman in our hearts! He was the one that inspired us all to be the best version of ourselves and was the one man that got the ball rolling with superheroes! Even if Superman IV represented when nothing matter anymore for Superman, we can at least look back at the time to where it did matter for Superman!
The third installment of a franchise always tends to be the trickiest installment of them all to pull off. By that point, you start to run short on original ideas and it’s when the audience start to feel fatigue of your franchise since they are already familiar with your game and have seen all of the tricks you can pull out of your butts. There’s just so many times where the audience wants to see the Death Star get blown up! It’s also at this point where the studios are as desperate to make as much money as possible now that the brand is as popular as it is and the higher ups wanting higher box office numbers with each new installment. This leads to more emphasis on selling toys, comics, games, merchandise, etc than ever before! Because of that, the studios want to make sure the film aims to as big of a wide audience as possible! This usually results in studios being more involved with film production than before to make sure it has enough content in there for a wide majority of audience, the director having less creative freedom than before because of studio notes, and the desire to make the film more dumb down compared to the previous two films, to make sure it’s age appropriate for young kids and families to see in theaters! If you want a good example of exactly what I just said, look no further than Superman III!
Superman III was basically went the Superman franchise started to lose all of the hearts and wonders that it had from the beginning. While Superman II certainly had dents in it’s armor from both behind and in front of the camera, it was still able to hold together strongly because it built upon the original classics by having the world be more expanded upon, the characters being further developed, and the action and special effects being taken to the next level. This third installment with the man of tomorrow does the exact opposite of that. Instead of heart and wonder, it’s now just gags and slap stick. Instead of important social/political commentary, it’s now just mindless action and explosion. Instead of intimidating villains that pose a real threat to our heroes, they are now cartoon characters that you can’t take seriously. Instead of being smart, it’s now a self-parody! Putting all of this crap together, you get the complete s*itshow that is Superman III!
As you would expect, just like the last time around, Superman III had quite a bit of a rocky production! From disagreements on the script/budgeting to the cast feuding with the producers, it was not a smooth ship sailing to theaters in 1983! And unfortunately, it is very noticeable when you look at it on the screen! The effects looks worse because of it’s cheaper budget, the action as much less thought put into it with no weight, you have supporting characters that serve no purpose other than to be the comic relief (Poor Richard Pryor!), and it has little to no connections to the first two Superman movies!
All you have to do is look at two separate scenes in regards to how tonally all over the place in Superman III! Sometimes it’s all silly and goofy and other times, it gets dark really quickly!
Does those two scenes feel like they belong in the same movie? No, no they don’t!
Granted having a film be funny and dark CAN work if there is a properly balanced tone throughout and if the movie had an actual functioning brain in it’s head, knowing when to be funny and when to be serious! But, there in lies the problem!
Superman III does the exact opposite of what the last two films did, it refuses to take itself seriously by any measures! There’s no tonal balance that director Richard Lester is able to control, no genuine enough stakes to get invested in, and the only stand out sequences are the ones that are either obnoxious silly or obnoxiously serious! This is what you get when you become a self-parody!
For as much as other Part Three films have floundered, they at least did so because of a desire to try to top the bar the previous two films set up, only to end up having the whole foundation crumble right in front of you because of overreliance of your own ambition. Superman III doesn’t even attempt to be in the same wheelhouse as Superman: The Movie or Superman II. It has no desire to be a logical continuation of the first two films or offer an interesting expansion on the world of Superman. I’m willing to bet if you watched the first two films and watch this one without knowing it’s suppose to be the third Superman movie with Christopher Reeves, you would NEVER guest this was suppose to exist in the same universe as the prior two Superman movies. The tone is much different, the scenes feel much more weightless, the characters are giving much less to do, and the whole thing it seems to have room for is ridiculous action and gags throughout.
At times, Superman III feels even more of a soft reboot than even Superman Returns (I’ll certainly go into that more once the time comes!). It just exists in it’s own, immature bubble without a care in the world of honoring it’s title character or even trying to function in it’s own sandbox. It’s just well….. a self-parody!
It’s hard to tell if how much of the studio politics played into the decision making of the film, how much of the film was what Lester wanted, and/or if this film would have even been made at all if Warner Bros wasn’t able to overpay Christopher Reeve to get him to come back, but Superman III follows victim to many disappointing threequels out there, forgetting what made it’s franchise successful in the first place and crushing the entire foundation in the process. What makes this third chapter stink more than most of them though is it’s lack of desire to be as engaging, interesting, or entertaining as the previous two Superman films were! That’s what you get when you become a self-parody!
With a mostly negative reception from fans and critics alike and a disappointing time at the box office, you would think this was the end of the Christopher Reeve run of Superman. Believe it or not, that wasn’t the case! There was actually one more film! A film that somehow managed to be even worse than this one and be up there as one of the worst superhero films ever!
Tune in next time and I will tell you ALL about it!
Director’s cuts for films tends to be a big talking point nowadays with film discourse. Whenever a highly beloved/controversial director takes their jab at directing a film from a well-known IP, questions always spur online about how much of the finished product is actually theirs to behold. Was the finished film one in which the director themselves had in mind from the start or is it just what the higher ups at the studios wanted it to be? With studios and producers having more a say on a final film product than ever before, that question tends to get ask every time a big film comes out when it lacks overall quality!
Of course, there is no director more famous/infamous with only being able to get the exact vision they intended with a film than Zack Snyder. Nearly EVERY single time a film of his has come out and it’s not well received by critics or general audiences, the immediate reaction from Snyder and his fanbase is ALWAYS about how his original cut was much better and you need to watch that in order to get the full satisfying motion picture. From Watchmen to Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice to Justice League to new Rebel Moon movies, there is no one that loves the word “Director’s Cut” more than Zack Snyder himself. Although I will be talking about his full director’s cut of Batman V Superman and Justice League later on in the marathon, it does give the indication as to how much someone’s opinion on a movie can change drastically when they see what the person behind the camera intended all along.
However, there are some instances where director’s cuts tends to be VERY complicated. Not necessarily that the entire quality of the motion picture changes on a dime but the way that a certain director decides to tell the exact same story in an entirely different way than someone else does. And this exact example I will be talking about today is no other than with Superman II.
As you could tell based off the title of this piece and my intro, Superman II featured a lot of different changes from both the original 1980 film and it’s sequel. After the massive success of Superman: The Movie, Warner Bros demanded a sequel ASAP. However, the production of it’s sequel went through it’s fair share of shake-ups, controversies, and mass difficulties in getting a quality product in theaters and even when it came out of theaters. Because of all this and more, Superman II was the product of two different directors, Richard Donner and Richard Lester. Yes, both directors have the exact same first names. I do NOT believe that was a coincidence whatsoever.
Following the success of the 1976 film The Omen, Donner was hired by WB to direct the original Superman movie along with it’s sequel. And to make sure that deal would be met, both movies would be film back-to-back simultaneously. However, tensions arose between Donner and the producers behind the films, particularly the father-son duo of Alexander and Ilya Sakling and Pierre Spengler. From clashing visions to scheduling conflicts, things became a mess from behind the scenes. It got so bad that the producers decided to bring in Richard Lester as a “co-producer”, A.K.A. a back-up director, and basically told Donner to just finish the first film and let them deal with finishing the second film. After Superman: The Movie became the hit that it did, the production of Superman II resumed but with Lester now behind the camera. Although, Donner had already shot 70% of the film, Lester had to go back and reshot much of the film, radically changing the tone and several sequences, just so he could get full director’s credit for Superman II.
So, yeah! That was quite a chaotic history involving the making of the second cinematic installment involving the man of tomorrow! Although Lester’s version ended up being a box office hit with a mostly positive reception, interest grew of what Donner’s original version of Superman II was like. And considering we were now starting to enter the era of DVDs and re-releasing films with extended or director’s cuts, what better time than any to release a cut of Superman II in which Richard Donner had his full name on the cover.
Unfortunately, despite high demands and a fan campaign asking for Warner Bros to release the Donner cut for the film’s 25th anniversary, they were unable to do that because of complicated reasons. With circumstances such as Marlon Brando suing the studio over royalties, which prevented his likeness being used, Richard Donner having never completed actually filming the whole movie, and the man behind the camera himself admitting he didn’t really have an interest in releasing one, it seemed highly unlikely that it would ever see the day. However, by the time 2006 came around, things changed and the studio actually gave into the demand, releasing the “Donner Cut” of Superman II on DVD.
While the Donner Cut was being assembled, an attempt was made to restore as much original footage of Donner’s original vision as possible. After all, some of Lester’s footage was needed to make the story feel actually coherent, being able to fill in the leaping gaps and create a proper bridge between Superman: The Movie and Superman II. Even though he wasn’t able to save his 100% vision due to the film being WAY too late to go back and reshoot, Superman II: The Donner Cut still remains one of the more unique director’s cuts of any mainstream film that has ever been released.
Instead of feeling like a complete finished film, it comes across as more of a “what if”. What if Richard Donner had full control from start to finish? What if he was able to film the two movies back-to-back fully like he intended? Well, the answers we got to those questions involves a director’s cut of Superman II that features several major differences from the film that was released in theaters back in the early 1980s.
Because of that, let’s take a look at some of the key differences between The Donner Cut and the Theatrical Cut.
More Sincerity, Less Comedy
Richard Donner has always viewed Superman as a modern mythology. Because of that, Superman: The Movie and his cut for Superman II reflected that, with a more serious approach to it’s subject matter and means of telling it’s story. Sure, the film definitely contains enough of a sense of humor, especially when compared to say…..Zack Snyder’s Superman, but for the most part, it’s a more serious, albeit sincere tone throughout the entire film. With Lester on the other hand, it was quite different. You have all the funny business with Lex, Non, the evil Kryptonian that doesn’t talk, acting like an overgrown baby, shots of civilians in the city during the final battle, one which involves a guy with roller skates and another guy talking on the phone, and the Kryptonians putting their faces on Mount Rushmore. Donner, on the other hand, cut most of the jokes that he probably felt cut the tension with each individual sense and just got right into the meat of them.
While I’m fairly certain this is more of a studio mandate rather than what Lester wanted personally, I say I prefer Donner’s take on what the tone of the film should be here. I like how he decided to take things more seriously without going too far and be able to incorporate a sense of humor when the film requires it. I guess we now know which superhero film to ACTUALLY thank for all that awkward humor that’s always thrown into every MCU film since 2012!
More Epic In Scale, Less Action
Just like the first thing, I imagine this was more of a decision from the studios to add more action scenes into the theatrically released film and less so on the director himself. Warner Bros craved to add in more action into the picture and less of the slower moving parts with certain scenes being too stretched out. Because of that, we get more mythical Normal Rockwell-esque Visuals with the Donner Cut and less of that mythical cinematography in Lester’s cut. And also because of that, we get more added in action in the theatrical version compared to Donner’s version.
The biggest example of this comes with the big fight in Metropolis between Zod, his minions, and Superman. This is a fight that ends with Superman running away and luring them to the Fortress of Solitude. From there, Superman tricks them into depowering themselves by reversing the effects of the crystal chamber. In the Donner version, it cuts right to this bit. In the Lester version, there is an additional fight scene added in the Fortress of Solitude first.
While I can understand the crave for more action in your Superman movie, the way that Lester went about to get more action really devoid the film of eternal logic. The Evil Kryptonians can now just suddenly teleport and shoot energy beams while Superman is now able to create holographic duplicates of himself. Not to mention, the bizarre power when Superman peels the “S” off his costume and hurls it onto Non like a big blanket. I like action but not if it comes at the cause of the actual quality of the film. Because of that, point goes to Donner here!
More Music From Superman: The Movie Instead of The Score From Superman II
As if the clash over Donner and the producers wasn’t insane enough, a similar thing happened in the production for Superman II with the legendary John Williams. While he was originally slated to score Superman II, Williams ended up getting into a feud with Lester after Ilya Salkind left the projection room. When he returned, John told him that he couldn’t get along with Lester and exited the film. To take his place, Lester brought in his frequent composer Ken Thorne. Because of that, Lester’s version offers a much different and more energetic score this time around, feeling like a composer’s own vision instead of trying too hard to match Williams. However, in Donner’s version, he reuses most of William’s score from the original film instead of using Thorne’s score from the original theater cut.
While I hate the circumstances leading to the situation, I give credit to Lester for being able to make the soundtrack work and feel like it’s own thing compared to the first film. No one is ever gonna top John William’s magnificent Superman theme from the original but the score here works well enough. And while I can definitely see why Donner would prefer to do more of William’s score instead of Thorne, you do get a sense that some of the tracks don’t match certain scenes the way they should and comes across as being overedited sometimes.
More Rough Around The Edges
This difference is a bit obvious but Lester’s version certainly feels more like a complete vision than with Donner’s. While The Donner Cut offers an interesting look of Superman II from the man that made the original such a classic, it doesn’t come off as a finished product. Had Richard been able to complete the Superman sequel that he started back in 1979, it would’ve certainly looked much better. However, with The Donner Cut that released back in 2006, it is simply the best he could do over 25 years later. Much of Lester’s footage remains in the film because it was needed to tell the full story, with a bit of jarring test footage in the middle from Donner thrown in for good measure.
While we’ll never know how a 100% version of Superman II would’ve looked like under Richard Donner, he still did the best with what he could do given the minimal material he had left to work with decades later. Even if I do like most of Donner’s ideas more, I do think by the end, Lester’s film ended up with the superior film, largely due to the fact that it feels the most complete and finished.
More Lex Luthor
Once Lester came on board to do reshoots for Superman II, Gene Hackman was reluctant to do any of them without Donner. Because of that, Lester could only use what Donner already had with Lex Luthor and just roll along from there. He had just enough of Lex to tell story and nothing more. In the Donner Cut, Luther is given a slightly bigger role than before. With more emphasis on the funny business with Lex and his co-workers, Hackman is given a bit more of a screen presence than he did in the original theatrically released version.
While I still wish Hackman was given more to do as Lex this time around, I’m glad Donner was able to salvage what he could and have Luthor contribute a bit more to the plot than he did with Lester’s cut.
Lois Lane Is Much Smarter
Lois Lane is a very smart character, perfectly matching the wits and skills of her counterpart, Clark Kent. So much so that Lois is able to discover the realization that Clark Kent is indeed Superman himself, something which no one else was able to do. At the end of the original film, Lois briefly notices the resemblance between Clark and Superman but just hand waves it off. In Donner’s version, this thread immediately continues with Lois scribbling some glasses on a picture of Superman, realizing that Clark Kent and Superman might just be the same person. To prove this claim right, she jumps out a window of the building of The Daily Plant to make Clark save her. But Clark is able to convince her that he isn’t Superman. Once the two are at Niagra Falls, Lois spots Clark without glasses and yet again suspects that he is Superman. Later at the hotel, Lois shoots a bullet from a gun right at Clark Kent, which nothing happens. After that, Clark admits that he’s Superman and Lois admits that the gun only had blanks. In Lester’s version, the first time that Lois suspects that Clark is Superman is at Niagara Falls. It’s only when they are at the hotel, Clark drops his glasses into a fire and retrieves it without burning himself, revealing to Lois that he is Superman.
Both of these takes work in their own right but I find myself leaning more towards Donner’s version here. With the way it builds upon Lois flirting around with the fact that Clark Kent and Superman might be one of the same from the first movie, Donner’s feels more of an organic follow-up to Lois’s development. Although, Lester’s version looks much better since Donner never actually got to film the scene in the hotel. Instead, he had to set for a repurposed test footage with Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder respectively. While it works fairly well, the sound and performances do feel off and the continuity doesn’t mix and mash with the rest of the film.
Marlin Brando Returns
In the Donner Cut, Marlon Brando returns as Jor-El where he basically plays the same role he did in the first film. He mostly acts as a driving force for Kal-El, offering guidance to his own son beyond the grave. In the Lester Cut, Jor-El was replaced by Superman’s mother, Lara, played by Susannah York. The reason he doesn’t show up in Lester’s version is because after Superman: The Movie became a massive success, Marlon Brando sued the producers because he was owed nearly 12% of the box office revenue. Because the studio refused to pay him for any of the box office revenue for the sequel , Brando’s scenes had to be reshot in the theatrical release with Lara instead. Thankfully, Warner Bros was able to work out a deal with Brando to put himself back in Donner’s version.
Giving the circumstances, I think Lester did very well with what he could do. Plus, it did make sense to have Superman’s mother be a guiding force for him in his version, while the original film had Superman’s father play that same role. I don’t mind either one here but I do wish for an outcome that had both of Superman’s parents acting as that special emotional support for their son beyond their death. When thinking about what would act as a proper mirror of the original, I’d say Lester wins here. When it comes to acting as a part of Clark’s development here, I would probably go with Donner here.
Zod And His Crew Escape In Different Ways
In the Donner cut, the movie starts with a recap of the previous film, which ends with Superman carrying a nuclear missile out int space. It’s the shockwave from that missile that hits the Phantom Zone prison and allows for the evil Kryptonians to escape. In the Lester Cut, Superman stops a terrorist attack in Paris by tossing a hydrogen bomb into space, which frees the evil Kryptonains.
It’s mostly a minor difference but Lester’s cut at least gives Superman an actual reason to throw yet another bomb into space, just like he did at the end of the previous film. And with the way both cuts recaps the begin of the previous movie, Donner’s version does better at showing how exactly the events from the previous movie leads into it’s sequel. Unlike with Lester’s version, which comes across as more of a prologue read by the narrator of a tv show, telling viewers what happened in last week’s episode. Tough call, but I give the slight edge to Donner on this one, with at least having the beginning feel more consistent with the previous film.
Why Superman Gives Up His Powers
In both versions, Superman gives up his superpowers to be with Lois Lane. In the Donner Cut, Superman admits to himself and his father Jor-El that while he’s being selfish, he just wants to relax and be happy with another woman. His father argues that his son can NOT favor one human over the rest of humanity. Feeling he can no longer serve humanity in an objective way that would make his parents and himself proud, he gives up his powers. In Lester’s cut, Superman talks with his mother Lara instead. The conversation is much shorter, with Lara telling her son that if wants to be a mortal, then he must become one.
If we are looking through the perspective of what’s the right thing for Clark Kent himself to do and he achieves it, then Lester’s cut wins here. If we are looking through the perspective of what’s the right thing for Kal-El himself to do and he does the exact opposite of that, then Donner’s Cut wins. For the benefit of Superman’s overall arc in the film, I give this one to Donner!
No Magic Kiss
And lastly, the magic kiss is NOT presented in the Donner Cut. In Lester’s Cut, Superman II ends with Lois’ memory of knowing Clark Kent is Superman is wiped away in the form of a magic kiss. However, with the Donner Cut, Lois’ memory gets wiped by Superman flying around the world and rewinding time back before Lois figured out he was Clark Kent. It’s basically the exact same ending as Superman II except nearly the whole movie gets reverted back to square one.
As much as both ending come off as cheap plot gimmicks and glorified deux ex machina, I honestly believe Donner’s version is even worse, making the whole film feel like it never happened and undoing all the character progression like it’s some glorified Saturday Morning cartoon that prohibits progression in it’s story. The magic kiss is cheesy but I’ll still take that over a lazy rehash of the ending of the first movie.
I think you can now see why your experience with Superman II can be quite different by watching both of these cuts on their own terms! And that’s not even going into the two other notable cuts of this movie: 1.) the fan edited version that combined the best of both Donner and Lester while trimming the notable fats from both version and 2.) the ABC televised version that added 19 minutes of footage to the theatrical release, including alternate scenes involving Lex Luthor and an alternate ending. When putting all of that together, there’s not just one, not two, not even three, but FOUR different versions of Superman II you can watch. Not even Zack Snyder can dream of having THAT many cuts for just one feature film!
I will say despite the two different versions of Superman II that I’ve seen, my opinion on the film is largely the same. In the sense, that it’s a very, VERY good sequel that perhaps falls JUST shy of the greatness the original film had, largely due to these conflicting directorial visions, confusing character motivations, and feeling the need to pull it’s punches more times than not. Even so, I will say that I still would consider it to be the second best Superman movie to date (unless my rewatch of Man of Steel or Zack Snyder’s Justice League changes my mind).
Had we got one complete version from either Richard Donner or Richard Lester from beginning of production to the very end, then I think we could have gotten a perfect follow-up to Superman: The Movie, acting as that perfect two-part story figure that Christopher Nolan got superbly right with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight many years later. Instead we can only imagine what would’ve happened if either one of these gentlemen got both of their hands on this sequel from the very start!
There is a lot of controversy surrounding Disney nowadays. Whether it’s due to their inconsistent quality of recent years, overreliance on nonstop sequels, spin-offs, and remakes, constantly milking a property dry until the very last drop of milk, overworking their employees and staff, and their participation of the so-called “culture war”, you just can’t seem to have a reasonable conservation about Disney without one side going absolutely BALISTIC over it! However if there is one opinion that seems to united the majority of the human population, it’s the fact that the Disney live-action movies/remakes…..kinda suck.
Unless it’s something involving Pirates of the Caribbean or National Treasure, live-action movies/remakes from Disney generally do no work on multiple levels, with only the box office successes for a good chunk of them being the core reason as to why they still get made. That’s not to say that EVERY single one of them has been a disaster. Live-action remakes/movies such as Cinderella (2015), The Jungle Book (2016), Pete’s Dragon (2016), and Christopher Robin have had their fair share of fans but more often than not, these kind of corporate projects tend to have more backlash attached to them than acclaim.
I normally don’t like to “worst of” lists because the real world is already depressing enough and the last thing I want to do is throw more fuel into the already politically fueled toxic garbage fire that has plagued our world for the better part of a decade. However, in this case, I figured it would be fun to talk about Disney’s massive missteps in the live-action/remake department because everyone else seems to have fun doing it. And unlike most worst of lists out there, I highly doubt my picks will be that controversial among most reading this lists. But, who knows?
Dishonorable Mentions:
102 Dalmatians
Alice Through The Looking Glass
Aladdin (2019)
Cruella
The Little Mermaid (2023)
Mufasa: The Lion King
Now onto the main list.
10.) Dumbo (2019)
The first 1/3 of Tim Burton’s Dumbo (2019) is a solid and faithful adaption of the original, that’s able to translate the aesthetics and heart of the animated original pretty well while standing proud on it’s own two feet. Unfortunately, there’s another 2/3’rds of the movie, which consists of nonstop filler to justify it’s modern movie runtime, that is about as boring, tedious, and repetitive as the majority of these Disney live-action remakes are. Also, what the heck was Michael Keaton trying to do with his performance here? Between this and Alice in Wonderland (2010), maybe it’s for the best to keep Tim Burton AWAY from these kind of movies.
9.) Lilo & Stich (2025)
The newest addition to these infamous pack of live-action remake flicks have two elements going for it: the superb casting of Maia Kealoha as Lilo herself and the lovable little misfit that is Stitch himself. Nearly everything else about Lilo & Stitch (2025) falls flat here. The changes made here feel like they are done for the sake of change, beloved supporting characters from the original are sidelined and feel more like a footnote than anything else, the editing is so bizarre and distracting that puts it on par with the fence scene from Taken 3 (Remember that?!) and the ending that involves Nina making a big life changing decision does not gel well at all with the message of ohana that the original explored so well (Regardless of what the post credits scene might have to say about!) Also, Jumba is the real villain in this one, yeah! Not even some decent performances, a couple of laughs, and Stitch himself can save Lilo & Stitch (2025) from being a dud. Unfortunately, if the stellar opening box office weekend is any indication, my opinion (along with plenty of others online) doesn’t matter.
8.) Mulan (2020)
Many people have this one at the top of their list for worst Disney remakes and it’s easy to see why. Mulan (2020) attempts to do a live-action adaption of the beloved animated classic with a much more serious tone and changes to the lore to make it stand out as it’s own thing. Unfortunately, Mulan herself is reduced to being an overpowered superhero with a bizarre chosen one storyline, completely undermine the point of the character and her arc from the animated original. And don’t get me started on the over-the-top action scenes, the clash in tones, the laughable main villain, and the very wooden performance from our lead (Less said about the initial controversy surrounding the lead actress, the better). I do give it points for ambition and trying to do something different to make it work on it’s own terms but when looking at the overall picture, Mulan (2020) is simply a dud and makes for one of the most heartbreaking live-action Disney remakes released thus far.
7.) Peter Pan & Wendy
While David Lowery was able to make one of the absolute best Disney remakes with Pete’s Dragon (2016), he unfortunately also settled with one of the absolute worst ones with Peter Pan & Wendy. Once again, this live-action adaption of two beloved characters in Peter Pan & Wendy tries to add new wrinkles to their origins, only to miss the point entirely and ruin the entire central metaphor of the story that it’s adapting. It’s certainly one of the more well-shot and photographed of the Disney live-action movies/remakes and Judy Law is EVERYTHING as Captain Hook but unfortunately, director David Lowery just did NOT have the sauce (Did I do that right?!) that he had with Pete’s Dragon.
6.) Beauty & The Beast (2017)
While this might not technically be the worst one, I can’t think of a remake that goes to show just how utterly pointless these Disney remakes are than Beauty & The Beast (2017). Despite having excellent material to work with and a star-studded cast, there is no new interpretation of the material that is presented throughout it’s bloated runtime that you didn’t already see be masterfully done in the animated original. It’s just the exact same story but longer, with unnecessary additions, confusing character motivations, ugly characters designs, and a new song you completely forgot the moment the movie is over. And don’t even get me started on the blink-and-you-miss-it gay characters (that would soon become a trend for the next seven to eight years with Disney movies). I won’t go as far to say that this ruins the original Beauty & The Beast in any way but all it does is make me want to go back to the original Beauty & The Beast over and over again and forget about this one entirely.
5.) Alice In Wonderland (2010)
Here’s the one that started this dark, corrupt path of Disney’s most lazy and creatively bankrupt packages of so-called “motion pictures”. Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland (2010) tries to add his own spin on the classic animated tale, with a more bleak and twisted feel to it. Unfortunately, the final version to come off as cruelly murky, violent, and unpleasant to watch as a result. While you can see there’s an attempt at making Alice a more three-dimensional character and expand upon the world building of the Wonderland itself in the most Tim Burton-way possible, it gets too bogged down by it’s own bizarre direction, feeling like it belongs more in the world of The Nightmare Before Christmas than it does with Alice in Wonderland. You can always give a movie props for trying to do something different but like Mulan (2020), it’s the WRONG kind of different!
4.) Snow White (2025)
Even if you are that one sane individual that was smart enough to live under a rock over the pre-release discourse nonsense surrounding the live-action reimagining of Disney’s first ever animated motion picture, Snow White (2025) is FAR from the fairest of them all. Much like with 90% of live-action remakes, it can’t decide how far it wants to go with it’s new ideas or how much wants to walk with the same path line as the original. The style is all over the place for to be a nostalgic pleasing throwback, the new elements that are added in feel more like baggage than depth, the reshoots and rewrites are painfully obvious, and Gal Gadot gives by far one of the worst performances in any Disney film ever. Surprisingly, the best part about this disastrous remake is Rachel Zegler herself, fitting the role of Snow White as best as one could in live-action. (If only she knew when to give herself some restraint.) Too bad the rest of the film sucks so much that it justifies all the hate that these live-action remakes/movies get. While not quite #1, Snow White (2025) is a culmination of nearly everything wrong with these Disney live-action remakes and is (hopefully) a wake-up call to Disney to finally leaves these kind of films in the past and put that money to something more wiser.
3.) Pinocchio (2022)
If I were to describe the Disney live-action remake that feels the most soulless and creatively bankrupt, that honor would go to Pinocchio (2020). Robert Zemeckis takes the original animated classic and strips it completely of it’s magical charm, with a script and direction that feel as wooden as Pinocchio himself. The visuals effects are generally poor, Tom Hanks is awfully miscast as Gepetto, and the changes to the story undermine the movie’s central message at every turn. This is a remake that just feels like a remake that exists for the sake of existing, feeling the need to update and give the modern treatment for no reason whatsoever. Say what you will about any other remake on this list but at least you can understand where they were going for and understand it’s reasoning for existence from a business and even creative standpoint. I could not tell you why anyone thought that Pinocchio (2020) was a movie that needed to exist And I don’t think even Disney themselves could tell you either.
2.) Maleficent
11 years later and I’m still completely baffled how Disney was able to screw up what should have been an absolute WINNER for them in Maleficent, one of their finest and fairest foes throughout their history. Despite what the title would suggest, the Maleficent that we all know and love from Sleeping Beauty is NOWHERE to be seen throughout the entirety of the film. For whatever reason, Disney felt the need to overcomplicated things and give Maleficent a reason as to why she is as evil as she is, while unintentionally confirming she actually has a heart of gold and isn’t as vile as she makes herself to be. The fact that I just typed that out loud should go to show you how little this movie understands the character of Maleficent. Throw in hard to see cinematography, sluggish pacing, bizarre plot holes, and some of the ugliest CGI creatures I’ve ever seen and you a real crappy picture here. Poor Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning are wasted here in a film that fails to capitalize a fraction of their talents. But hey, at least, they weren’t stupid enough to do it again with Cruella and Mufasa, right?! *runs away to go cry in the corner*
1.) The Lion King (2019)
There is NO live-action movie/remake to date that perfectly capitulates how bad, cynical, lifeless, and emotionally cold these kind of movies are than The Lion King (2019). Everything that made Jon Favreau’s prior Disney remake with The Jungle Book (2016) work is done COMPLETELY wrong here. There is no inspired direction, no engaging narrative, no unique art style, no convincing looking animals, no standout moments of it’s own, and no justifiable reason for this film’s existence to be found at any given moment. It only exists to remind you how great they got it right the first time around in animated form and for NO other reason than to make a bunch of dollar signs. (And it sadly worked!) Don’t get me started on the way it butchers beloved moments of the original in the most HILARIOUSLY awful way possible (Mufasa’s death scene KILLS me every time!) or doing everything in it’s power to be a complete by-the-numbers retelling of the original with no new ingredients of it’s own. The Lion King (2019) is a culmination of everything wrong with these Disney live-action movies/remakes and why they continued to be the most lazy, artistically bankrupt and pure spite of films that Hollywood is still releasing to this day.
If there is one film medium that has been a dominant force for the 21st century, that would be comic books and superheroes. While we are now living in an era where this subgenre of movies is not as strong as it was in the previous two decades, there is no denying that they have changed the way that blockbusters have been made for the past 25+ years. However, even before the likes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and the multiple DC Cinematic universe attempts, even before the likes of Blade (1998), X-Men (2000), and Spider-Man (2002) rolled around, and even before Tim Burton’s or Joel Schumacher’s Batman made their ways onto the scene, there was one superhero movie that stood proudly on his own. Not only working as a near perfect example of what a superhero movie should consist of but it set the template and tropes on how a superhero movie or even a blockbuster in general should operated. That one film I’m talking about is no other than Superman (1978), directed by Richard Donner and played by the OG Superman himself, Christopher Reeves.
This was the superhero movie that changed everything! It proved that a film based off of a comic book superhero can work and translate onto the big screen as well as it possibly can. It proved that big cinematic experiences of this kind can be just as compelling as say a giant space opera or an intense thriller involving a big shark (Bet you can guess which two blockbusters I’m referring to from back then!). And most importantly, it proved that comic books and superheroes can shine a very bright light on pop culture, telling stories with impactful themes and unforgettable role models that anyone can look up to (No pun intended!)!
This was the birth of the superhero genre!
This is Superman (1978)!
To prove that this was indeed the one film that started this ongoing superhero movie trend, I decided to name six distinct tropes that this film laid out which is still being followed up to this day. Even nearly 50 years after Superman (1978) came out, these are all common beats you still see in superhero films to this day. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some of/if not all of these with James Gunn’s Superman come July. Nevertheless, here are the six common tropes and cliches with superhero movies that Superman (1978) started.
1.) Origin Story
When it comes to the first chapter of a superhero story, it usually starts off with showcasing their origins. This is the part of the story where you find our where exactly the titled superhero came from, who gave birth to them, and how they got their powers and became the actual titled superhero. It’s become such a staple at this point that folks will call blasphemy if a certain version of a comic book superhero does NOT contain the origin in some way, shape, or form. No matter how many different stories we get off Spider-Man or Batman, we ALWAYS need to see Uncle Ben and the Waynes being shot in cold blood.
In the case of Superman, his origin involves his biological parents, Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van, sending him off to Earth while his home planet Krypton is on the verge of collapse. Clark is then discovered in Kansas by Jonathan and Martha Kent, who would adapt him and raised him as their son. It’s doing this sequence where Clark must discover what he was destined to be by his own mother and father, while learning what it means to live among the human beings on Earth by his adoptive mother and father.
This is a nice origin story that is able to be more about being an outcast rather than just a traditional “fish out of water” story. This is about Clark Kent learning to blend in with a brand new home not just as Clark Kent himself but as Superman. And even with all the criticism and rejection among the public, he still wants to do what is right. He wants to be the hero that his birth parents always envisioned of him. He wants to save people’s lives while stopping those that put them in harm’s away. And most importantly, he just wants to do good things for the goodness of mankind. Regardless if he will do it in a legal or illegal way, he is determined to be a hero at all costs, regardless of what the public thinks of him.
While the 1/3rd of this movie does take it’s time on establishing the origins of Clark Kent’s transformation into Superman, it is important to always showcases the answers to the questions that anyone might have about it’s title hero. Whether it’s like a traditional first installment with a superhero that spends the first half establishing the hero’s origin story (Spider-Man (2002), Batman Begins, Iron Man, or Captain America: The First Avenger) or uses an opening sequence or flashbacks scenes to establish their origins (Batman (1989) and The Incredible Hulk), showcasing a superhero’s origin is always urgent in order to get audience’s connected with the hero’s journey. While I can’t say for certain, I guarantee that the origin of a superhero would not be as much of a staple as it is if it weren’t for this film showcasing these exact important events.
2.) Secret Identity
A usual key component for a superhero story is with the main superhero having to keep their identity a secret. There are always exceptions such as when Tony Stark revealed his true self at the end of Iron Man or Diana Prince always representing Wonder Woman but more often than not, these are usually stories about the main superhero having to learn to keep their superhero life a secret and finding room to focus on their normal, everyday life. You have Peter Parker who has to learn how to balance himself between being Spider-Man and Peter Parker, you have Bruce Wayne needing to let his playboy billionaire side shine in the day and his crime fighting vigilante side shine in the night. In this case, we have Clark Kent needing to keep Superman and Clark Kent as two separate identities.
Of course, the main jab at Superman is how it’s unfathomable how anyone can’t tell the difference between Clark Kent and Superman because they both look exactly the same. Like, all you need to do is remove the glasses and you can see it’s literally the exact same person. How can a superhero who is trying to protect his secret identity do so by basically hiding in plain sight? That is a question with Superman that I thought about for years and could never find the answer to. That was until……I saw Christopher Reeve’s performance.
The main aspect that makes Reeve’s performance stand out perfectly as both Clark Kent and Superman is the fact that they feel like two completely different people when you watch them. As Clark Kent, he’s the typical nerdy, awkward man who is a bit of a dweb that is the last person you would ever expect to be a superhero in red and blue pajamas. As Superman, he’s this brave, heroic figure that you would never suggest could be some weak, submissive geek that lets his female co-worker fight his battles for him. I’m pretty sure if you asked Clark Kent in real life that he looks just like Superman, he would be able to PERFECTLY convince you that he is NOT Superman and just said, “Yeah, I guess that’s true! But I assure you, I am NOT him!” All you had to do is see how Clark Kent and Superman act so different in each scene and how perfectly Reeves is able to make them both convincing as two separate characters!
You are lying to yourselves if you ACTUALLY believe these two guys could be the exact same person if you just judge based off their appearance and personality and NOT just looks.
The secret identity tends to play a big role in most superhero movies, especially with origin stories, but I don’t think there has been a superhero movie that’s been able to capture just exactly what it means to be an average everyday joe to being the world’s biggest savior than with Superman (1978). A story which sees a man has to convince that his personal self and superhero self is NOT one of the same despite looking exactly alike. And this is in large part thanks to Christopher Reeve’s pitch perfect portrayals as both Clark Kent and Superman respectively.
3.) Love Interest
Of course, you can’t have a traditional superhero story without a traditional love interest. This is usually always added to give a story a bit of an emotional anchor and give motivation for the main superhero to do what he does. There are times where it can fall into some pretty infamous tropes. From being a constant damsel n distress to acting as a “trophy” for the main hero to getting the “fridge” treatment, this can be seen as the weakest part of the story if you are not too careful and learn too much into one of these tropes. There’s only so many times where people want to see Gwen Stacy die so Spider-Man can be sad only to get replaced by a love interest that’s hotter but much more blander (*cough* Mary Jane Watson *cough*). Thankfully, Superman (1978) is able to find a love story that works quite fondly with Superman and Lois Lane.
To be sure, it does involve Lois Lane having to be saved at least a few times by Superman. There are two notable moments of that, from falling off of a building and another instance that will be discussed later on. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Lois is a strong character in her own right and can even being seen saving Clark Kent on some occasions. She’s feisty, strong-willed, always determined to get the job done, and is always able to give Clark the emotional support whenever they need it. However, what makes her a perfect equal to Superman is how they will both stop at nothing to accomplish their goals for the greater good.
Lois Lane in general is someone that is as fearless as Superman is and always shows dedication to finding truth and justice for every report she covers as a journalist with the Daily Planet. Sure, she might not be as invincible as Superman is and is certainly not bullet proof but when it comes to her heart and free will, she is about as equal to Superman as someone can possibly get. That’s what makes the two a perfect couple and Lois Lane a perfect love interest.
Just watch this scene and tell me that it is NOT magical!
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what inspired Disney to making the magical carpet scene in Aladdin.
Most superhero movies tend to always botch the love story. Mostly because it usually only acts to give the superhero a love interest and have it play second-fiddled to everything else going on, usually only acting like a box that needs to be checked off. But with Superman (1978), Lois Lane helps acts as the pure heart of the film and helps Clark fill that missing hole he had within himself in his early days as Superman.
4.) Saving People’s Lives
This is simply one component that a superhero movie can NOT live without. You need scenes and moments that shows a superhero actually being well…….a superhero. Throughout superhero movie history, we’ve seen plenty of examples of superheroes filling their good superhero duties by saving the lives of folks they’ve sworn to protect. We’ve seen Spider-Man saving people from a burning building, we’ve seen Iron Man rescuing passengers from a plane. With Superman, we get to see him rescuing innocent people from natural disasters and bridges on the verge of collapsing.
While the main protagonist saving people has never been anything out of the ordinary, there’s always something special when a superhero does it. This is mostly because they are able to save people in ways that an average person won’t be able to. They are gifted the skills, power, wealth, and/or resources to be able to rescue lives and give themselves a name which regular people would not be able to. With Superman, he is just using the powers that was gifted to him by his parents and home world for the benefit for others and not just himself.
And I know you might be wondering why I am not referring to Superman saving a specific important character at the near tail end of the film. Well, that’s because I’m saving that for the very next part.
5.) The Big Third Act Climax
Okay, this movie doesn’t have the traditional big third act battle that most superhero movies those. This isn’t like the third act of every Avengers movie where there is always so much crap that goes on at the same time that it can be hard to keep track off. This isn’t even like the big climaxes to Superman II, Man of Steel, or Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice where it involves Superman having to fight a powerful being that is even stronger than himself. This involves Superman having to save the day from the wreckage that Lex Luthor causes, a wreckage that could cause a worldwide nuclear war. Much like the climax to Spider-Man (2002) (expect without the ass-kicking 101 scene with the Green Goblin), it involves Clark having to be the hero to the world that he believes himself to be.
I already partially covered the meaning and purpose of the climax in my last part where it involves Superman having to save the very people he has sworn to protect. However, what part I missed out on is the part where he has to save Lois Lane after she partially died. After Superman fails to save Lois from the earthquake that Lex Luthor caused, he commits the biggest deus ex machina imaginable by using his superpowers to rotate the earth back and turning back time.
Can this be considered “cheating”?! Heck yeah!
Does this make any sense whatsoever?! Heck no!
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the third act climax is where Superman faces his toughest challenge yet, the part of the film where the main superhero finds himself pushed beyond measure to be the hero for everybody and the ones he loves. That always tend to be the blueprint for most third acts in superhero stories and I have no doubt this is the one superhero movie where many filmmakers got their first inspiration from.
6.) Being A Symbol
This might be the most important trope of all for every superhero story brought to the big screen. That is having your main character be a symbol. Not just for the characters in the story but for the audience as well! For superheroes to exist for as long as they have, they must have inspirations. They must have folks that would love nothing more to follow in their footsteps and become superheroes of their own in any way, shape, or form. Thankfully, Superman (1978) is able to succeed at that in both ways.
In the context of the movie, the public now has a very positive view on Superman and sees him as being mankind greatest superhero. When it comes to pop culture, the entire world and entertainment industry has followed in this film’s footsteps of making not just more Superman incarnations but also more superheroes of his kind.
Since this film came out, we have gotten more Superman films, shows, games, and comics that most certainly got it’s initial template from this 1978 gamechanger. Also, since this film came out, we have gotten many different superhero films, shows, games, and comics of it’s kind. The kind that I imagine would not exist if it wasn’t for the impact that Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve brought to the world.
Above all, Superman (1978) is able to prove that it’s title hero is in face the symbol he set himself out to be. Not only through the truth, justice, and American way that the character himself claims but through having that impact on the whole world, being the kind of hero that his parents always thought of him has and what I imagine the world saw Christopher Reeve has.
Being that exact symbol!
A symbol of……you guessed it……hope!
In conclusion, superhero movies wouldn’t be where they have been for a long time now if it wasn’t for Superman (1978). This is not only the superhero film that got the ball rolling but it’s the superhero film that laid the groundwork for all the beats, tropes, and basic structure that nearly every film based off of a comic book and superhero is expected to follow upon. This overexposed subgenre only ever became what it is and has grown to be for nearly the past five decades due to the groundbreaking success of Superman (1978).
Adam's Blog 