Superman (2025): Truth, Justice, and the Woke Way?  Not so fast.

Based on the news reports – and commentaries by a number of my conservative colleagues – was prepared to see America’s number one superhero be indentured into the service of the radical left.  In a word, the “man of steel” had become woke.  To check it out for myself, my daughter and I went to the local cineplex to see Superman (2025).  I failed to see anything particularly woke about the movie.  It was by far not the best rendition of the Superman story, but that had nothing to do with the offensive political messaging.  (After dealing with the specific woke criticism, I will offer my personal movie critique below.)

Let us take a look at the general complaints.

Illegal immigrant Superman

Several critics found that the emphasis on Superman’s status as an undocumented immigrant was a negative reflection on President Trump’s border policies.  I never saw his status as a significant theme in the new movie, I suppose technically Superman is an illegal alien – if cartoon characters can be illegal aliens — but whoever thought of that.  For decades nobody cared – or realized — that Clark Kent never filled out a Form I-485.

This is not the first time Superman has expressed support for immigrants, however.  A 1950s poster features Superman talking to a group of young students.   He says, “… and remember, boys and girls, your school – like our country – is made up of Americans of many different races, religions and national origins.  So …if YOU hear anybody talk against a schoolmate or anyone else because of his religion, race or national origin – don’t wait.  Tell him THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN” (emphasis original).  That sentiment was not controversial in those days since it was still assumed that most folks of different national origins were citizens or were in America legally.

In a 2003 animated version, Justice League, Superman is described as “the immigrant from the stars who taught us all how to be heroes.”  There was little public attention given to Superman’s status, but that was before Illegal border crossings became a crisis.

Globalist Superman

Another bone of contention is an international diplomacy subplot. Early in the film, Superman mediates a war between Boravia (a bad ass aggressor) and Jarhanpur (the prey) — fictional nations that sound like the latest seen-on-television medications. Critics say this global peace mission makes Superman look like a UN ambassador in tights – a globalist. The guy who used to fight for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” now settles foreign disputes like a cosmic Henry Kissinger.  (Ironically, I thought if you had to make a comparison, Superman’s peace efforts were more analogous to President Trump).

Of course, DC Comics already foreshadowed the global Superman by changing his motto in 2021 to “Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow.”   “The American Way” was out. A global Superman was in. Worse than left-wing revisionism, the new motto is downright wimpy. It is a bit like changing “Don’t Tread on Me” to “Be Careful Where You Step.”

Whose war is it?

Some critics say Boravia and Jarhanpur as stand-ins for Israel and Palestine. Way no.  The name of the nation, the movie characters’ attire and the mumbled language clearly screamed Russia.

On the other hand, Jarhanpur sounds Indian, but the folks on the ground did appear to be Middle Eastern.  The juxtaposition of those two fictional nations might have found a reasonable real-life match in the years Russia was fighting in Afghanistan – nothing relating to today’s conflicts.

The Villains

Critics complained that the villains in the film were powerful technocrats—oligarchs, by another name. But … making villains out of corporate moguls has been an evergreen standard feature in movies, cartoons – and politics – since forever.  In this case, it was Lex Luther as the head of LutherCorp – a variation of the comic version, LexCorp.  He was a technocrat because everything about the move was tech.  Corporate America may get a bad rap in movies, but it is nothing new.

Superman’s Kindness

Some critics seemed to intimate that Superman’s “kindness” was somehow a woke thing.  Director Gunn did say that his movie was about kindness.  Since when is kindness an attribute of the left?  In fact, conservatives donate to charities and adopt kids more than liberals.  I am not ceding kindness to the left. 

Gunn has our hero saving babies, women and dogs. But that has been the story of Superman from the onset.  In fact, the cover of the first Superman comic (now with millions) does not have the Man of Steel fighting some bad dudes.  Rather, he is lifting a car to save lives – an act of kindness.

Wokeness?

I saw nothing woke about the movie.  No heavy left-wing messaging.  No preaching of any sort. For sure, Superman displayed admirable qualities.  But it was basically the same old story of good triumphing over evil.

About the Movie

Having dispatched the wokeness issue, what about the movie itself?  I rate it as possibly the worst Superman movie ever made.  For one thing, Superman was not much of a superman.  He was getting beaten, bruised and bloody as much as anyone in the movie.  Several times he got pounded into the pavement injured and unconscious – and was almost killed on a couple of occasions.  The old Superman had bullets bounce off his chest, the 2025 version gets punched and bleeds like a hemophiliac,  And it was not Kryptonite.   He was just getting his rock-hard gluteus maximus kicked on a regular basis.  In one instance, Superman had to be carried back to his home in Smallville, Kansas, to recover.

The movie featured a number of other superheroes – Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho and Mister Terrific — and even Krypto, a super dog.  It was a good thing.  They had to come to Superman’s rescues time and time again.  Even Kryopto had to save Superman on a couple occasions.  In fact, Mr. Terrific stood out as the real hero of the movie.

When it came to intervening in the war – and defeating the Boravians – Superman was not around.  It was those other superheroes who had to enter the conflict and save the people of Jarhanpur.  Superman was in a prolonged street fight at the time with a clone of himself created by … Lex Luthor.  The movie was more about Superman being saved rather than saving – until the end, when the Man of Steet we have come to love finally emerged. 

The movie also suffered from too much technology.  The special effects were way over the top – generated by computer software.  Too much ridiculous and noisy action.

Gunn’s Statements

Gunn insists his film is about kindness. When accused of politicizing Superman, he called his critics “jerks” and said, “Screw the haters.” Which is a harsh assessment from someone directing a franchise built on ideals like tolerance, humility, and maybe, kindness.

There is a painfully earnest scene where Superman waxes poetic about nonviolence to Lois Lane. It is preachy. It is pedantic. It is… puzzling. Is this the same guy who pounded villains into the ground like tent pegs and tossed them 30 feet into brick walls? (Okay, perhaps that is a left-wing version of nonviolence.)

Then there is Sean Gunn—James’ brother, who plays Maxwell Lord in the film.  He poured more gasoline on the ideological bonfire by saying that those who oppose immigrant deportations (even illegal ones and criminals?) “are not American.”  Which, if you are scoring at home, officially makes approximately half the country… un-American.  Frankly, I found the Gunn brothers’ comments more offensive than anything in the movie.

Summary

In the past, superheroes – such as Superman, Batman and Spiderman – were two-dimensional characters – figuratively and literally.   They did not have weaknesses, internal conflicts, human emotions – and zero sex drive.  But they evolved along with the American culture.  The Superman brand expanded to include a family of superheroes – Superwoman, Supergirl, two Superboys (one gay) and a Superdog.

In the end, the problem is not necessarily the film—it may be the cultural mood. These days, even a guy in tights with chiseled abs becomes political litmus tests. Some viewers see Superman (2025) as a timely reminder of humanity’s better angels. Others see it as Hollywood’s latest attempt to sneak ideology past the popcorn.

And you know what?  They are both right. Superman has always been more than just a flying muscleman. He was – and is — a mirror of contemporary culture.  He evolved just as we the people evolved.  Right now, what we see in Superman – or in the mirror — depends entirely on who is looking.

I never mourned the old Superman – nor was I put off by the evolution.  I saw nothing in Superman (2025) that offended me or aroused my conservative ire.  Not the greatest Superman movie, but still entertaining – an ear-deafening kinetic escape from reality for a couple of hours.  I give it 3 stars.  I can hardly wait for the next remake of Superman – when he will fight (nonviolently, of course) for Truth, Justice and Medicare for all.

So, there ‘tis.