On July 11th, 2025, James Gunn’s Superman made its super debut in theatres. On its first weekend, the film came back with 125 million in the box office, around a third of its budget. The film did well with critics and audiences alike, however, the film still garnered significant controversy. On one hand, the film is heavily criticized as being “too woke,” while the other sends its praises for its nuanced social commentary. Walking into the film, I was told that its social commentary was explicit and leaning quite liberal as well. Walking out, I was comically underwhelmed.
This is not to say the movie is bad. Objectively, I think Superman is a good movie. The production is fantastic, it has a beautifully cultivated aesthetic, a thoughtful script, and more. Gunn has definitely made his mark in the film industry and has easily become one of the most notable directors in Marvel and D.C. The film does grapple with issues such as immigration, war, and corruption in a deliberate manner. It is easy to take these aspects of the film and prescribe it to a specific ideology or conclusion, but I find these prescriptions to be entry level. For the sake of time, let’s cover two core aspects of the film.
Immigration
Immigration has been at the forefront of various countries’ politics recently, especially in the United States, so I can imagine the feelings this film provoked among its audiences. Clark Kent himself is an immigrant, and this film does not shy away from that fact.
Previous adaptations tend not to harp on his otherworldly origins. He was raised in America for his entire life, his parents are humble farmers, and he possesses core American ideals: freedom, justice, liberty. Where Superman (2025) strays from its predecessors, Kent’s immigration status is not conveniently cast aside in the film. Just because he was raised in the U.S, has perfect American parents, and has dedicated his life to public service, does not absolve him of his immigration status. Lex calls him an alien, in the literal sense — although that word has heavier historical implications –- in their final confrontation leading to the iconic, “That’s where you’ve always been wrong about me, Lex. I’m as human as anyone.”
Kent’s development has little to do with his biological origins, and the film advocates this. I’d go as far to say it’s just reaffirming past Superman adaptations. Kent’s origins were never in question before, passively accepting his immigration status. The only difference here is the film chooses to vocalize it.
Considering the nuances of real life debates on immigration, I think this message can easily fall into political commentary, but this is not a brand new Superman commentary, it’s just framed differently. Even taking it back to the comics, Kent’s origins literally do not matter. Red Son details the story of Clark Kent if he had ended up in Soviet Russia and there he grows up in alignment with said culture. Simply because Gunn’s adaptation decided to be explicit in its conversation about Superman’s origins, does not mean this is new information. Superman was born in space, “immigrated” to the United States, but that does not make him less American. He does his due diligence as an U.S citizen and more, and he is entitled to defend his own humanity.
International Conflict
Superman (2025) does not keep its conflicts localized. Before the events of the film, Kent had stopped the fictional country of Borovia from invading equally fictional Jarhanpur. During Kent’s interview with Lois Lane, he justifies his intervention with, “People were going to die.” He did not act on behalf of the U.S and explicitly clarifies he was acting on what he personally thought was good. Eventually, Borovia attempts another invasion, and a secondary group of heroes intervenes.
It is important to note that Borovia holds no consideration for the civilians of Jarhanpur. In fact, the movie insists on powerful imagery, with a young child on the front lines of the invasion, calling for Superman. The movie is not shy about the stakes of this conflict. If Superman, and later on the Justice Gang, had not intervened, civilians, women, and children would have died.
In response to the film, audience members of all alignments were quick to compare the film to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which many have pointed out. Before I had seen the film, I had even thought the international conflict in the film would be explicit in its citation of international affairs.
My critique is quite simple because this aspect of the film is quite simple. These fictional events cannot compare to the real historical contexts of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it does a disservice to the conflict to reduce it to a comparison to a fictional conflict in a fictional movie.
Lastly, this portrayal of war is not one we have never seen in film before. If this exact same subplot were to come out in a separate movie, say five years ago, I don’t think it would be considered “woke.”
Art does imitate life, and when we consume art, we tend to consume it biasedly. Biases all too easily can add fuel to a spark.
These critiques really only work in the context of our current time period. There is very little in this film that can be considered brand new. These topics and commentary have a longer history than their presently aggressive discourse. There is so much more substance to the film than the above issues as well. The film grapples with insecurity, corruption, commentary on media, and morality. So much is going on in our everyday world that it’s easy to find something to attach to, and if ever the film did have a downfall, that would be it. It’s not a woke film, it’s just easily applicable to real life. It revels in its own complex humanity, finding more of itself along the way.