Bottom line: Just go see it. It’s really good, albeit with a few big flaws, but it’s a great reset to the DCEU and the Superman franchise. For those choosing not to see it because of so-called “woke elements”—if you choose to politicize beyond the occasional politicization that co-writer and director James Gunn introduces—you’ll miss the larger picture. There might be occasional commentary here and there, but the main story is bigger and better than that.

The film has two “shadows” over it. One it the complicated and contradictory mess of current events, which are addressed here and there. Any film can be read politically by those who live and think primarily in a political mindset, and Superman provides enough opportunities for those poised to read it in that context. Yes, he’s an alien, and therefore an immigrant, and there are plenty of comments made on that subject that ring today’s bells. Gunn also makes the occasional social comment, the very best (and by far the single best moment in the film) being the quick shot of monkeys working their social media outlets with “negative reviews.” It’s funny on its own, and nearly everyone can relate to that, but those that know Gunn’s unfortunate history with social media can enjoy it on another level.

The other “shadow” is the history of Superman in comic and cinematic forms. I tend to work hard to view films as stand-alones, and not just as sequels, or prequels, or films working to upend their primary source. In that mindset, I will say that IMHO, this is the best Superman since the 1978 Christopher Reeve version. As all superhero/Superman films belong to their times, it can be fun and instructive to see how they reflect or comment on the times in which they were created. I can’t help but being familiar with the Superman myth, having watched the George Reeves version as a kid, and enjoying the 1978 version, and lamenting those films that followed.

Here’s what I liked about this new version. The three/four main actors (counting Skylar Gisondo in the subordinate and confusing role as Jimmy Olsen) are excellent. Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor is the very embodiment of obsessive hatred and jealousy, and he gives his substantial all to the part. I’ve been impressed with Rachel Brosnahan since her work in “House of Cards” and especially “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” and she makes this Lois Lane not just her own (hard to do), but she makes it one for the ages. She’s funny, whip-smart, and never lets on the she is in a DCEU movie. She’s the snap, crackle, and pop of the film.

Which of course leads us to the lead, David Corenswet (“Hollywood,” “The Politician,” Twisters). He fits this version perfectly for this new take. He’s sincere, funny, smart, and of course, has the requisite look and build. He is in stark contrast to Henry Cavill’s darker, more serious Superman, so that works in his favor as a creative divergence. He doesn’t hit any wrong notes even while stuck in some wrongly written or directed situations. He acquits himself well with whatever the film throws at him, even though the film’s tone is all over the place. What holds everything together is strength of those three central performances.

This conception of Superman is of course one for today as well as fitting into the “for all ages” myth. Of course, as a Gunn production (think the Guardian of the Galaxy films), it has more humor and lightness than most, and Corenswet admirably weaves his way through all the twists and turns of plot and tone. The basic scheme of course is the same: Superman good, Superman strong, Lois punky, Luthor horrible, Jimmy sweet, Kryptonite always a danger. Nothing new here, but how they various elements are handled fall somewhere between imaginative and entertaining and questionable.

We are thrown in media res instead of dealing with setting up who Superman is, where he is from originally, where he grew up, where his alter ego works, and who is archenemy is. Smart choice. But there are simply too many times our hero is shown in a weak position, including our first view of him in the ice. Not the Man of Steel we are used to, but it does present him as vulnerable. That repeats itself more than once, including an excruciatingly long sequence of him under the Kryptonite influence (a scene which includes an unexpected and gruesome murder that small children shouldn’t see.) As is typical here, the victim happens to be a nice Muslim friend of Superman’s, which can be politically interpreted in any way you want (or just accepted as a way of seeing how awful Luthor can be). 

There are pocket universes which are never clearly explained, and there is an absolutely unbelievable subplot (which graduates to a legit plot point) with Luthor’s shallow girlfriend inexplicably in deep, deep love with Jimmy Olsen. It’s worked nicely into the plot toward the end, but it never passes the believability test.

Everyone tends to love Clark’s rural parents, but here they are presented, unfortunately, as loving but absolute rubes who don’t quite know how to use a cell phone. It’s embarrassing, and can be interpreted as a negative comment on folks in a rural landscape. And in another twist, it’s the dad who is the emotional one. OK…whatever.

Lastly, on the negative side, there are a few other issues. The obligatory massive fight scenes full of CGI wonder are one too many and tend to exist by themselves. I would love to see a shorter fight scene sometime with a tighter focus, a greater connection to the characters, and a more obvious emotional core, but that’s not part of the structure of these films. Gunn goes one too many in the individual rescue sequences, which include a young girl (aww), a woman who needs to be told how to breathe (OK), and a squirrel (huh??) With all the chaos around him, the Caped Crusader is spending his few precious rescue moments on a rodent? Some interesting ideas can go on a bit too long. Same thing with “the dog” … an interesting and fun idea that get s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d as well.

So why am I positive on Superman? I love the idea of a more nuanced and sensitive central personality, even if his times in peril keep robbing us of his action scenes genuinely playing the hero. The various aspects of this character add color and variety. Corenswet as Clark is a joy to watch, and he meets his equal (Lois) with humor. The now-famous interview toward the beginning between Lois and Superman is gold, with genuine issues being addressed while fleshing out characters and personalities at the same time. Great idea, well executed. The dynamic between Lois and Clark is the best part of the film, and the only downside to that is that there aren’t more scenes just between those two. Great chemistry is hard to find, and we want more as the film goes on. But the glue that still manages to hold all things together are the three central characters that never lose their focus, and some of the most endearing and talented acting in a superhero movie. These are not recessive characters by any stretch, and that keeps the film buzzing and alive. Luthor/Hoult (spoiler alert) is sent to prison at the end of the film, but just as long as the next film (he writes with hope) keeps Corenswet and Brosnahan together, I have hope for this new chapter.

The film also cleverly addresses the “collateral damage” issue that other superhero films have struggles with (and generally can’t seem to work out.) This film allows many a creature to be brutally sacrificed, but they aren’t human. And many a building gets destroyed, but there is precious little human life lost. We get the big fight and the destruction without the guilt of the loss of (human) life. It’s a quiet victory in the film, but Gunn pulls it off.

Gunn tries to do too much, and not all of it works. But he keeps things moving, with humor that mostly lands where it should. This is a completely new reboot to the series, and its one that has the elements that can sustain a respectable and enjoyable series.