.webp)
MAGA influencers called for a Superman movie boycott after the director labeled the character’s story inherently political.
Several right-wing influencers have launched a boycott of Superman, set to hit theaters on July 11. Their outrage stems from recent comments by director James Gunn, who told The Times of London that Superman’s origin is inherently political.
“I mean, Superman is the story of America,” Gunn said. “An immigrant that came from other places […] but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”
Conservative media quickly pounced. Fox News host Laura Ingraham dismissed the film entirely, declaring it as “another film we won’t be seeing.”
Other MAGA influencers echoed the sentiment online, portraying Gunn’s message about kindness and immigration as a liberal agenda push. However, Gunn remained unapologetic, stating, “There will be jerks out there […] But screw them.”
Gunn embraces Superman’s political roots
Gunn’s version of Superman focuses on empathy, morality, and alienation. These themes have been embedded in the character since his 1938 debut in the first issue of Action Comics. In his interview, Gunn acknowledged that the movie might be received differently in liberal vs. conservative parts of the country.
“Yes, it’s about politics,” Gunn told The Times of London. “But on another level, it’s about morality. Do you never kill no matter what — which is what Superman believes — or do you have some balance, as Lois believes? It’s really about their relationship and the way different opinions on basic moral beliefs can tear two people apart.”
When asked about the divide between Metropolis-style New York and Clark Kent’s Kansas roots, Gunn admitted, “Yes, it plays differently.” But he emphasized that the message remains universal: “It’s about human kindness.”
“I’m telling a story about a guy who is uniquely good, and that feels needed now because there is a meanness that has emerged due to cultural figures being mean online.”
That message, while historically part of Superman’s DNA, has triggered a backlash in today’s polarized climate.
“They… uh…. they know Superman has always been an immigrant right?” asked @mktoon on X.
Gunn’s take on Superman as an immigrant story aligns with the character’s Jewish roots. Created in the 1930s by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, sons of Jewish immigrants who fled the European pogroms, Superman was born of a need for hope during a time of rising anti-Semitism.
Historians have long connected Superman to Jewish folklore, particularly the legend of the Golem of Prague. Like the Golem, Superman was crafted as a protector of the powerless. Historian Ralph Nurnberger noted that while the Golem was made of stone, Superman is “a man of steel” A modern, Americanized myth built on the same foundation.
Comics expert Arie Kaplan argues that Jewish creators like Siegel and Shuster embedded their worldviews into early superhero narratives. “Jews created the first comic book,” Kaplan wrote in From Krakow to Krypton, “and brought a uniquely Jewish perspective to their work and to the comics industry as a whole.”
Despite the conservative backlash, Superman has always reflected deeper societal issues, from his Depression-era origins to his immigrant metaphor.
It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a … a purple and orange shape-shifting chemical compound?
Writer-director James Gunn’s “Superman” was always going to be a strange chemistry of filmmaker and material. Gunn, the mind behind “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “The Suicide Squad,” has reliably drifted toward a B-movie superhero realm populated (usually over-populated) with the lesser-known freaks, oddities, and grotesquerie of back-issue comics.
But you don’t get more mainstream than Superman. And let’s face it, unless Christopher Reeve is in the suit, the rock-jawed Man of Steel can be a bit of a bore. Much of the fun and frustration of Gunn’s movie is seeing how he stretches and strains to make Superman, you know, interesting.
In the latest revamp for the archetypal superhero, Gunn does a lot to give Superman (played with an easy charm by David Corenswet ) a lift. He scraps the origin story. He gives Superman a dog. And he ropes in not just expected regulars like Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) and Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) but some less conventional choices — none more so than that colorful jumble of elements, Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan).
Metamorpho, a melancholy, mutilated man whose powers were born out of tragedy, is just one of many side shows in “Superman.” But he’s the most representative of what Gunn is going for. Gunn might favor a traditional-looking hero at the center, like Chris Pratt’s Star-Lord in “Guardians of the Galaxy.” And Corenswet, complete with hair curl, looks the part, too. But Gunn’s heart is with the weirdos who soldier on.
The heavy lift of “Superman” is making the case that the perfect superhuman being with “S” on his chest is strange, too. He’s a do-gooder at a time when no one does good anymore.
Not everything works in “Superman.” For those who like their Superman classically drawn, Gunn’s film will probably seem too irreverent and messy. But for anyone who found Zack Snyder’s previous administration painfully ponderous, this “Superman,” at least, has a pulse.
It would be hard to find a more drastic 180 in franchise stewardship. Where Snyder’s films were super-serious mythical clashes of colossuses, Gunn’s “Superman” is lightly earthbound, quirky, and sentimental. When this Superman flies, he even keeps his arms back, like an Olympic skeleton rider.
We begin not on Krypton or Kansas but in Antarctica, near the Fortress of Solitude. The opening titles set up the medias res beginning. Three centuries ago, metahumans first appeared on Earth. Three minutes ago, Superman lost a battle for the first time. Lying bloodied in the snow, he whistles, and his faithful super dog, Krypto, comes running.
Like some of Gunn’s other novelty gags (I’m looking at you, Groot), Krypto is both a highlight and an overused gag throughout. Superman is in the midst of a battle by proxy with Luthor. From atop his Luthor Corp. skyscraper headquarters, Luther gives instructions to a team sitting before computer screens while, on a headset, barking out coded battle directions to drone-assisted henchmen. “13-B!” he shouts, like a Bingo caller.
Whether this is an ideal localization ofthe main characters in conflict is a debate that recedes a bit when, back in Metropolis, Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet. There’s Wendell Pierce as the editor-in-chief, Perry White, and Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen. But the character of real interest here is, of course, Lois.
She and Kent are already an item in “Superman.” When alone, Lois chides him over the journalistic ethics of interviewing himself after some derring-do, and questions his flying into countries without their leaders’ approval. Brosnahan slides so comfortably into the role that I wonder if “Superman” ought to have been “Lois,” instead. Her scenes with Corenswet are the best in the film, and the movie loses its snap when she’s not around.
That’s unfortunately for a substantial amount of time. Luthor traps Superman in a pocket universe (enter Metamorpho, among others) and the eccentric members of the Justice Gang — Nathan Fillion’s Green Lantern, Edi Gathegi’s Mister Terrific, and Isabela Merced’s Hawkgirl — are called upon to lend a hand. They come begrudgingly. But if there’s anyone else that comes close to stealing the movie, it’s Gathegi, who meets increasingly absurd cataclysm with wry deadpan.
The fate of the world, naturally, again turns iffy. There’s a rift in the universe, not to mention some vaguely defined trouble in Boravia and Jarhanpur. In such scenes, Gunn’s juggling act is especially uneasy, and you can feel the movie lurching from one thing to another. Usually, that’s Krypto’s cue to fly back into the movie and run amok.
Gunn, who now presides over DC Studios with producer Peter Safran, is better with internal strife than he is international politics. Superman is often called “the Kryptonian” or “the alien” by humans, and Gunn leans into his outsider status. Not for the first time, Superman’s opponents try to paint him as an untrustworthy foreigner. With a modicum of timeliness, “Superman” is an immigrant story.
Mileage will inevitably vary when it comes to Gunn’s idiosyncratic touch. He can be outlandish and sweet, often at once. In a conversation between metahumans, he will insert a donut into the scene for no real reason, and cut from a body falling through the air to an Alka-Seltzer tablet dropping into a glass. Some might call such moments glib, a not-unfair label for Gunn. But I’d say they make this pleasantly imperfect “Superman” something quite rare in the assembly line-style of superhero moviemaking today: human.
“Superman,” a Warner Bros. release is rated PG by the Motion Picture Association for violence, action and language. Running time: 129 minutes. Three stars out of four.
After many months of suspense, Warner Bros Pictures' Superman has finally been released, and reactions are rolling in.
After all, it’s one of 2025’s most highly anticipated films, and it’s under a lot of pressure with the superhero genre taking a bit of a dip in recent years.
Not only is it the first film in the revamped DC universe, but its success could shape the future of the entire franchise.
Director James Gunn, the man behind the Guardians of the Galaxy and mastermind of the new DC universe, is behind the 2025 film, which stars David Corenswet as the titular Superman.
Also on the cast is Rachel Brosnahan playing Lois Lane, Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern, Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl, Aussie actress Milly Alcock as Supergirl, and Bradley Cooper as Jor-El, Superman’s dad.
It’s the first Superman film in over a decade since Man of Steel, which was released in 2013 and starred Henry Cavill as Superman.
The new Superman film has some big shoes to fill after its predecessor made a cool $670 million internationally, despite some mixed reviews.
So how does the new film stack up? Social reactions online from press and fans have started flooding in, and people so far seem to generally be in agreement that the film is one worth seeing.
“Superman is great,” Brian Hiatt of Rolling Stone wrote. “It’s the most comic book-y superhero movie ever made, probably closest in tone to the Raimi Spider-Man movies but far more fantastical. That leaked review is gonna end up as a major outlier.”
Slashfilm’s Chris Evangelista commented: “Gosh, I absolutely loved this. James Gunn’s feature-length comic book splash page is so unapologetically silly, earnest, and intentionally corny that it utterly charmed me. Left a big, stupid smile on my face by the end.”
Screenrant’s Molly Freeman said: “James Gunn’s Superman is GREAT from start to finish — just a fun-filled, action-packed, quintessential summer blockbuster. It’s the shot of adrenaline the superhero movie genre needs. Also, Krypto is THE BEST dog.”
Courtney Howard of The Av Club posted: “Superman absolutely soars! An awesome achievement & hopeful balm, honouring past iterations (cinema & comics) while cutting its own path. Corenswet has that heroic shimmer. Hoult is delightfully diabolical. Brosnahan brims w/ vim & vigour. Krypto’s adorbs.”
Showbiz 411’s Roger Friedman added: “Superman is really fun, not political at all. Corenswet and Brosnahan have terrific chemistry. Lots of fun with Krypto the dog. Nicholas Hoult is a top-notch scene chewer. Loved the fortress of solitude. A relief from past DC operas. The past few Superman movies I dreaded that they were so serious. This makes you feel like you’re enjoying a comic book. Kudos to James Gunn. Again. Nothing woke no politics. But Superman confronts his origin story in a successful way.”
With an 87 per cent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it looks as though Superman is a hit with the critics.
Not everyone was happy with the result though.
The Daily Beast’s Nick Schager commented: “Superman doesn’t skimp on the high-flying action, to a fault; the film is so awash in over-the-top CGI insanity that its slam-bang mayhem loses its punch.“
CBC News’ Jackson Weaver added that “Superman is less for 14- or 40-year-olds, but instead, splits the difference. It’s a perfect shooting strategy — if you want to hit nothing.”
It’s a tough path for Superman to walk, having now come after 36 films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the eighth Superman movie with the fourth actor playing the role since Christopher Reeve in 1978’s Superman.
Speaking with GQ, Corenswet revealed, “With a great character like Superman, you want great artists and writers and actors to explore all of the possibilities of them. The one way they become boring is if you just keep doing the same thing over and over again.”
But director and DC Studios boss James Gunn believes the film will be less of a risk than it seems for the wannabe universe, despite having cost $US225 million ($A344m).
“Is there something riding on it? Yeah, but it’s not as big as people make it out to be,” Gunn said to GQ.
“They hear these numbers that the movie’s only going to be successful if it makes $700 million ($A1.1bn) or something, and it’s just complete and utter nonsense. It doesn’t need to be as big of a situation as people are saying.”