Superman (2025)

Is it a bird?! Is it a plane?! No! It's YET ANOTHER superhero flick and YET ANOTHER attempt by DC and Warner Bros to try and get their DCU started (ugh!!!!!!). Jesus read the room guys!

So after the failure of literally everything else in the DCEU and DCU, the powers that be thought it would be a wise choice to hire James Gunn in order to kickstart/reboot everything all over again. Was this a wise choice? Well this still remains to be seen but going by his previous work, personally, I don't think he was the right choice.

Plot wise, a world where superheroes exist, people know of Superman, and he's been around on Earth for years. So no origins story for Supes...or anyone or anything really. You're just pushed right into the fray, right into the action, this is the world, accept it. Superman is trying to stop a conflict and a mysterious supervillain, at the same time, Lex Luthor is trying to upend and ultimately get rid of Supes in any way he can. Does Superman have too much power? He is a friend or foe? All sounds familiar doesn't it?

So this time around we seem to have been given a real mix of Superman interpretations from various eras. As we know, the bulk is taken from the Silver age era. There is also some 80's influence, 90's influence, current day influences etc...But this leads to the first problem. The Silver Age content is overly goofy and doesn't come across well, in my opinion. The inclusion of Superman robots in the Fortress of Solitude and Krypto the Dog are terrible inclusions. The robots could have been decent had they been realised properly and not like something out of 'The Phantom Menace'. Whilst Krypto just comes across like something from a kids' Saturday morning with all the silly baggage that would encompass.

The bright colourful visuals and overall comicbook appearance do look good (if a tad too CGI, as usual), and come across nicely, harking back to the classic 1978 movies (more so the third). But again I can't help but feel Gunn and co have gone over the top simply trying to distance themselves from the previous Zack Snyder movie which was seen as too dark. Whilst the Donner films were comicbook-esque, they were also grand in scope and dramatic when required. This Gunn movie feels far too cartoonish with little drama and too much quirky, dare I say, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' style tomfoolery. Almost every moment of drama is totally undercut with some stupid joke or visual gag! It's painful to watch.

Another problem is the dicey inclusion of current-day influences. Firstly this will easily date a movie in the future which is never good. Secondly, despite what you may have heard, there is absolutely an obvious reference to a certain Middle Eastern conflict in this movie. The plot revolves around two (fictional) countries, one with superior military might and supported by the US. The other a much poorer, ragtag bunch of people from a clearly poorer war-torn country with no military power, is OBVIOUSLY a nod towards current affairs, come on!

So let's talk about the Justice Gang, ugh! From the get go I always thought this was a mistake, too much pork. For starters we have no explanations as to who these guys are. Why are they around? Where do they come from? If these guys are around, where are all the other superheroes in the world? There should be tonnes flying around. Okay, so most people will know of, or heard of, Green Lantern. But who is Mr. Terrific? What's his deal? What are those flying spheres he uses? Why does he fly around in a flying armchair like a flying Professor X? Turns out he's essentially a Black Tony Stark, pfft! As for Hawkgirl, stupid name, stupid character, didn't even need to be there. Oh, and there's also Metamorpho, another character that Supes eventually gets help from. Who is this guy? Where's he from? What's his deal? (is what regular non-comicbook nerds will be asking). But its characters like this that give this movie an unwanted 'Guardians of the Galaxy' vibe.

Due to the inclusion of the Justice Gang, too many characters, this leaves little time for everyone else. We hardly get any Clark Kent, which also means we hardly get any 'Daily Planet'. In turn this means we get little from Jimmy Olsen, Perry White (race-swapped again), and any other Planet employee or Planet scenes. Superman's parents are there but again hardly used. Any emotional moments with them are undercut as previously said. Let's not forget about Lois Lane, well this movie does. She starts off okay, but past the first act, she is literally of no consequence to the plot.

Bizarrely, Mr. Terrific becomes more of a key figure than the rest, why? Beats me, because he's a Black character? (it is 2025 remember). I still don't even understand why people are raving about this guy. Sure he's a neat character, but nothing special. His main action scene was weirdly unexciting if you ask me as he merely walks along, surrounds himself with a shield or forcefield, and his flying metal spheres take out all his opponents. What was exciting about that?? 

As for the main man Lex Luthor, is it just me or would Nathan Fillion have been better in this role? Fillion's smartass asshole performance as Guy Gardner might have worked better as Luthor if you ask me. I didn't really like Nicholas Hoult as Luthor. He looks too young, too baby-faced, too clean-cut, and he wasn't very threatening (Gene Hackman used to scare me as a kid). Sure he's nicely sardonic but his face just didn't fit for me, needed a bit more gruff, or facial hair. He looked like Agent 47 outta 'Hitman', especially when wielding that gun. Gotta say I didn't really like the choice of David Corenswet as Superman either. This guy just came across to me as wholly bland, like brown bread, vanilla ice cream, nothing special at all. He doesn't even look remotely muscular as Superman either, although that could be the awkward look and fit of his outfit.

Critically for me this whole thing doesn't even look or feel that grand! The 1978 Donner film felt epic in scope, very special in every aspect, it blew you away. This Gunn offering feels and looks like an extended TV episode and small in scope. It comes across as very average, there's nothing grandiose about this at all. The casting, the effects, shots, sequences, dialogue etc...it all feels very generic and no different to a multitude of other similar superhero flicks we've already seen (especially, obviously, previous Gunn offerings). Hell, we don't even really see any proper sequences of Superman flying, or get any sweet flybys. Everything is mostly close quarters and right in Supes face (what's with Corenswet's eyes when he flies? It looks like he has exotropia).

And what did they do with the score here?? What was that terrible song over the end credits? Horrendous decision! Just goes to show you how important John Williams was, in the fact that even to this day, a Superman film doesn't work without his Superman theme.

Look, don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie, in fact it's a perfectly solid superhero flick. The main issue here is, this is a superhero flick and not a Superman flick. This is a typical James Gunn team (of smartasses) flick and not a Superman flick. This is not a Superman film for everyone, it's aimed squarely at comicbook nerds and the short attention span of TikTok Gen Z. Whereas the 1978 Donner film felt like Superman was actually set in a realistic place with real emotions and was somewhat grounded sensibly, this is a highly generic movie that looks and feels like a kids' cartoon. There has been WAY too much time and thought in trying to set up a new universe/franchise with multiple characters, and not enough Superman (leave things like that for sequels!). There is FAR too much stuff packed into this movie and overall it suffers.

5/10

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

 

Second reboot for this troubled franchise and this time they finally get the casting right. Ray Stevenson is brought in as the main man, and in my opinion he looks spot on for the role, kudos to the casting team. No makeup applied facial hair this time.

As for the film well, it's a bit weak in plot really. Very straight forward, very basic, how can I put this...it's like Tim Burton's Batman except, replace the Joker with Jigsaw and add extreme violence. Sooo bottom line I fudging like it baby! The origins are skipped for this entry which is good. We get flashbacks but that is acceptable, we don't need all the family massacre stuff again.

The film gets right into the action with easily the best sequence of the film. A mansion full of mob bosses and henchmen cannon fodder, ripe for the Punisher to exterminate. This one sequence is a pure joy to watch for action aficionados. The lights go out and our antihero appears from nowhere. He then proceeds to gun down everyone in sight with a few neck snaps and knife kills thrown in.

From there it's into the more traditional (unoriginal), yet still workable plot-line, of the big mob boss supposedly getting killed off by our antihero. But surprise surprise! The villain re-emerges from the shadows, horribly disfigured, and out for revenge. So it's pretty much the plot for the Joker, you could say the same thing for almost all the Batman villains really.

First impressions for the Punisher are good. His outfit has been changed and upgraded with some serious heavy military police style body armour including, a thick collar section, an arsenal of top-line weaponry, and his skull logo remains intact, emblazoned upon his chest piece. He looks like he's just stepped out of a S.W.A.T. armoury, and it's the perfect look in my view. It's up to date and would definitely be a more realistic take on what someone would wear in a real situation. The black leather biker look is gone, that's the more fantasy based look.

Twas amusing when Castle blasts a bad guys face off with a big shotgun whilst at the same time holding this little girl. If that doesn't mess her up later on in life nothing will.

The main villain Jigsaw is a highly enjoyable lunatic played by Yorkshire-born Sheffield lad Dominic West. I was very impressed with his ''Noo Yawk'' dialect (hard thing to achieve), and with the sadistic humour he gave to his character. I'm trying not to mention a certain Batman villain here, but one does tend to think of him whilst watching this film. I mean let's be frank here (no pun intended), this could easily be a Batman flick. West's performance is incredibly similar to Nicholson's performance as Joker in Batman 89, there I said it. We all knew this deep down. Definitely a fun watch, but maybe a bit too close for comfort?

The film can't quite keep up the pace for the full run time I gotta admit, the finale is a bit anti-climactic. The whole idea is very cliched really. Jigsaw goes off to recruit lots of thugs from various quarters (Chinese, Irish, blinged-up Black gangsters), they all hole up in Jigsaw's hideout and await Castle. It all feels a bit 'Batman Forever-ish' with all these different gangs, half expected the interior of Jigsaw's lair to light up in neon when the battle started.

So yes the whole idea for this film is pretty dated, its very cliche, very 80's, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I still can't quite understand why this flopped as its a fast paced, nasty gunfest with Castle kicking ass, what more do people want? For me this is the best version of the Punisher so far, dark, gritty, seedy...with solid graphic novel/comic book visuals.

Did anyone else think West's performance as Jigsaw also kinda looked and sounded like an Al Pacino performance? Seriously was that just me?? The more I think about it, the more I think Pacino would have been great in this role, Castle vs Scarface. Anywho, yes this is a very unoriginal feature, yes it feels like an ultra-violent copy of a certain Tim Burton flick (I've mentioned this too many times now), and yes this is not an MCU flick. But this is definitely an underrated and forgotten Marvel flick which should be up there with 'Blade'.

7/10

Gladiator II (2024)

At this point, I find myself hard-pressed even to call this new Ridley Scott offering an actual historical film due to its complete lack of accuracy. I also find it virtually incomprehensible how Scott thought it would be a good idea to make a sequel to his original self-contained Roman classic; and to simply call it 'Gladiator II' just looks and sounds so lame, like a cheap straight-to-DVD effort.

So as with pretty much every Scott film, the visuals are to die for. In this department Scott delivers every single time right down to the smallest detail. I can't think of a Scott film that doesn't look good. Here, Italy and Rome have never looked better with the cinematography right on par with the first film. The CGI is used intelligently so it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. All those ancient vistas, armour-clad armies, and aerial shots of the Colosseum look sumptuous.

You want ancient battles? Well as expected Scott also delivers here as well. The first battle set in Numidia (Romans vs. Numidians) is a rollicking set piece as Roman warships crash against the battlements of a North African fortress. This battle is short-lived but certainly satisfies on the war front (it could almost come from a Tolkien book). From there onwards it's off to the Colosseum for plenty of barbarian action which at times looked like something from 'Mad Max' blended with 'Conan'. It's hard not to be engaged.

Let's just cut to the chase here. Pretty much everything in this film is top quality and has clearly had a lot of hard work put into it. The problem is, was this even needed? Did this sequel need to be made? Obviously you already know I think this was a mistake. There was never a time when this was going to better the original film, and chances are, there was never a time when this was ever going to make as much at the box office. So why do this? 

The main plot here is so weak frankly. We follow Maximus' son Lucius, who lives in North Africa with his warrior wife. The Romans turn up, kill his wife, conquer his city, and take him into slavery (usual thing). Then with the devious and suspicious help of Macrinus (Denzel Washington) he must fight his way to the top to get revenge. Yeah, so it's kinda the same spiel as before with different characters and a few detours here and there, but essentially the same thing. On top of that, the casting here is poor, big names over the right choices. Pedro Pascal doesn't really have the right look for a Roman General and he tries too hard with his fake deep voice. Denzel Washington can obviously act but here he just doesn't fit. The way he talks, looks, his body language etc...It just doesn't fit the period. Some people look like they could belong in a historical period, others don't, it is what it is. As for Paul Mescal (Lucius), he's no way leading man material.

So visuals aside, everything is pretty meh with this. They throw in the classic operatic score from the original film here and there but it can't save the scenes. There just isn't the same emotional beat here at all. It all feels forced and like a collection of deleted scenes they pasted together to form a new picture, the scraps and outcasts. At the end of it all the big finale is a big bust too. A total anti-climax, completely falls flat whilst desperately trying to evoke the same emotions of the first film.

This is a perfectly good swords and sandals epic, had the original never been made. As I stated at the beginning, this was never going to top the first film and a sequel was completely unnecessary. This just felt like Colosseum porn, a opportunity to showcase more extravagant arena battles and fit a loose story around that.

6/10