The Best Superhero Movies in Years? (Superman vs Fantastic Four)

     I've been hearing about superhero fatigue for a long time now. I'll admit that even I, someone who loves superhero comics, have certainly been feeling it. The MCU hasn't really been bringing out as many big hits since Endgame, but most people reading this probably know that. While I don't get to the theater as often as I'd like to in recent years, I did make an exception for two films. As the title suggests, these were indeed James Gunn's Superman and the newest take on The Fantastic Four. Could 2025 be the best year for superhero movies since the 2010s? Yes, I would think so. 

    Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean I would consider either film to be among the greatest superhero movies ever made or anything, or does it? No, probably not, but I tend to be reflective in most aspects of my life, including movies. The impact and longevity of any piece of art are most evident over time. Ah, but am I saying these films have true artistry? Well, of course, I'm being silly. (I've had a long day, so I apologize for the stream of consciousness format)

    I've given some time to consider these films, let them leave my mind, and then revisit them, because that's how I roll. I like to detach myself from the initial hype, gripes, and buzz to give my most well-rounded opinion, hence why this might seem to be a less optimum time to transcribe this, but here we are. In short, I really liked both movies. I'm tempted to say I loved them or at least aspects of them, but I will resist stating this upon giving both movies an eventual rewatch at some point. If you don't wish to read further, my recommendation is this: If you like either property, they are both probably worth a watch.

    Ah, but what did you really think, Joe? Don't dance around it. Um, well, let's start with Superman, since I saw that one first. 

    For quite some time, I have been hoping for a Superman movie that is bright, colorful, and fun. It seems like we haven't really had one since the Christopher Reeve era. Well, I got what I wanted. I had a feeling, like many people, that James Gunn would be a good choice for director. He created one of my favorite Marvel films, Guardians of the Galaxy, turning a pretty obscure group of characters into some of the medium's most popular and recognizable. It's funny, I used to say how amazing it was to me that Iron Man became an A-list, but back in 2008 I had never even heard of Star-Lord or Groot. I still think it was an amazing feat. Hats off to all on the project. 

    The same thing can be said for Suicide Squad (the Gunn version, of course), which honestly could be my go-to example of a perfect superhero movie. It retained much of the silliness of the source material (the comic aka fun stuff) while still maintaining a serious enough story with solid characters. It got the balance right.

    I don't think Superman pulled this off to the same extent, but I also believe it was trying to handle some heavier material while juggling several other major plot elements. Really, it succeeded, just not in the same way as Suicide Squad or Guardians. Oddly, it might be Gunn's penchant for ensembles or the continuous need to shoehorn in other characters to expand the franchise, but it was funny that in the Superman movie, Mr. Terrific had the coolest moments. I mean, he was terrific, so I'm not complaining. It is still Big Blue's movie for sure, but it was almost distracting. Almost. Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, what's not to like there?

    Superman himself was great, bringing with him some of the themes of the Snyderverse but at his most wholesome and Golden Agey self.  I found it refreshing in that this film, more than any other, really leans into the quintessential salt-of-the-earth nature of Clark Kent. It reminded me of the Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale story, Superman for All Seasons, harkening back to these classic roots of the man who grew up on a midwestern farm with a simple and honest view of things. I found the charm worked, not feeling too nostalgic, and functioned as a great anthesis to the high-tech corporate cynicism of Luthor's company. 

    That was also something new the movie brought to the table, Lex Luthor's hate and mistrust isn't enough. He has a whole company of people united in taking down Superman. You kind of respect it. They aren't really evil, just doing what they think is right in a situation they don't fully understand. On the surface, it seemed simple, but it's actually rather nuanced and realistic. It also presents Luthor as charismatic enough to lead people without fear, something I don't think I've seen before. Fundamentally, though, he is still classic Luthor. 

    It was a really good viewing experience, with the runtime not on my mind at all. I think the twist of sorts with Kal El's parents might rub some people the wrong way. I can certainly understand it if it does, but the core of the character has always been his human parents anyway, so I don't see any irreparable damage. Even so, it probably wasn't necessary, but at least it was bold and fit with the theme of the narrative. I would watch it again!

    Oh man, Stan Lee's first superhero team has not had a great movie run. I can't really say that I've ever been a big fan of these characters inside or outside of the comics, but I've always appreciated them. So I guess that's why I have been hoping (ever since they were acquired from Fox) that this team would reignite the spark of the MCU, which has been waning since the departure of Downey Jr.'s Iron Man. While I can safely say my hope hasn't been fully restored in the MCU, I found this movie, much like Superman, to be very, very refreshing.

    What do I mean by that? Honestly, it's all about style with this one. It went all retrofuturist classic sci-fi and I was here for it. I loved the whole 1960s newsreel origin aspect. The whole way the world-building and exposition were often delivered just really worked for me. That's not all, though. You know how I said it was all about style? Well, okay, maybe it's not all about style. It's also about my other favorite thing, characters.

    The key aspect of what has made this group endure (well, besides Dr. Doom and few other characters I'll mention later) is the family dynamic. Despite being superheroes, the element that sets this family apart is, naturally, the family dynamic itself. This movie really leaned into it, making it the main focus. Now, is it odd that in a superhero movie there isn't a ton of superheroing going on? Is this an issue? Hmm. Maybe, but since it was done pretty darn well, and it actually breaks the tired formula that's been established over the last two decades, so I didn't really mind at all. 

    That's not to say there is no adventure or super science. There certainly is, but that stuff is mostly there to elevate the meaty character elements. This cast had great chemistry and really brought it all to life. 

    What about Galactus? 

    It's pretty tough to top how well they handled Thanos (another character I didn't much care about before the MCU), but the filmmakers did a commendable job. While he might not seem quite as all-encompassing and epic a threat as he may have otherwise, by sticking to the classic era the movie is rooted in, he fits pretty darn well. Personally, I wanted more Silver Surfer, but she also sufficed.

    So there you have it. Superman is better than he's been in years on the big screen and Fantastic Four is...well, good. That's pretty amazing from my perspective. While neither movie is perfect, and I'm sure some people gripe about one thing or another, I think you'd have to be looking pretty hard to twist either movie as "bad". Personally, I'm tired of all the negativity. Both these movies had heart-warming elements and added something new to the table. That seems like as good goal for a film as any other.

    On that note, as we were walking out of Superman, my wife and I heard a young person exclaim, "That's the best movie I've seen in my life." I'm pretty sure this young person was a teen, probably no older than fifteen or so. While I can't say I had that experience, it was truly wonderful that is film had such a positive impact. I'm fine with it being someone's favorite movie. I think that's pretty cool. 

I Watched All the Shrek Movies or The Surprising Beauty of Puss in Boots

 

What makes a movie endure? That's a really good question to start an article and yet I'm not sure I have an answer. It was question that came up as Amanda and I decided to go through all the Shrek movies. There was no particular reason for this, just a whim. While I sometimes have a desire to rewatch an old film I'm very familiar with or one I have missed that I've finally felt like getting around to, the Shrek films don't really fall into either category. 

That's not to say that I have any animosity towards the franchise, in fact I really liked the first two films growing up. I've been told recently that I throw the term "favorites" around too much, especially when it comes to movies. I guess there must be hundreds of films that I might have called that at one time or another, but that doesn't always mean they rank highly in some essential list for any great length of time.

My point is that while I may have probably considered the first Shrek films among my favorites for some brief time in preteen/early teen years (as I know my sister and I rewatched them frequently for a bit), they never made it onto any list currently or retroactively. So, no, I guess they were never REALLY among my favorites per say, but I enjoyed them and I wouldn't dispute the classic nature of the tale combined with the weird time capsule and memeability (is that a term?) the franchise has sparked with many people.

However, since I've never been a huge Shrek fan, I never watched anything past the second film. It was just one of the instances where interest waned between the second and third and I never had a desire to watch the remaining sequels. It's possibly I grew out of it, although I think it was a just simple matter of kind of forgetting about it and then (right around my high school years) I started to consider myself a "serious" film connoisseur and critic. Maybe my inclination towards believing more sequels generally equated to a downward trend in quality. Or may I just felt to mature for it. In any case, I don't think there was a conscious reason, Shrek just wasn't something I connected with enough to keep up with.

Amanda enjoys occasionally watching kids films. I feel like she suggests than more regularly than I do. So this prompted us to borrow the Shrek films from the local library. After watching all the films, something kind of unexpected happened that I honestly would have never guessed. My opinion on these films radically shifted, partially due to the simple input of new information. 

As is often the case when we get behind on what's current, my new perspective may or may not provide new revelations to Shrek fans far more diehard than I.  In fact, I find this franchise just one of many examples that I find interesting in regards to such an adoring fanbase. It's not necessarily that I can't see some appeal, I just never would have thought this franchise would result in yearly festivals. 

Having seen all the films at this point, I can still appreciate the fandom being what it is, even though it's not one of those things that resonates at the same frequency. Then again, I guess you could say that about any fandom you aren't are part of (perhaps with a few exceptions, like if you really don't GET something at all). I think I'm starting to stall, so here are my thoughts briefly on each film:

Shrek (2001)- This is of course the classic I grew up with. I can still appreciate how it's a clever jab at fairy tales and Disney's corporate nature in particular. All the while it does have a good message for kids with some spicy yet subtle adult humor in there. It's hard to deny how truly unique a film it is, which is a big part of what helps it endure, even if I don't love it as much as I did as a young viewer.

Shrek 2 (2004)- For about twenty years, this was where my knowledge of the franchise basically ended. I remembered for the longest time thinking this was the superior movie, with a good continuation of the themes of the story. I was surprised how many movie references of the time where thrown in. These stood out much more prominently and I may potentially damage the timelessness even more so than the pop songs.

Shrek 3 (2007)- Entering new territory, this was definitely the funniest of the movies for me. There were some very strong visual gags and some darker/slightly more sophisticated humor that I think the adult viewer would appreciate more. I was surprised to see how much they managed to push boundaries while still remaining fairly accessible to younger audiences. This movie was very much a direct sequel to the previous movie, following up Prince Charming's story as a villain in a natural way while actually providing some layers that make his perspective the sympathetic of franchise villains.

Shrek 4 (2010)- This one is kind of a mixed bag for me, as I loved the scale and scope of the concept (alternate reality a la It's A Wonderful Life). However, I must admit that this sort of scenario has been done before and does retread extensions of the same message we've been hearing since the first movie. Personally, I still think it stands out as unique, with perhaps the movie evil villain and the darkest tone. Yet, my biggest issue isn't really any of the formula, just that I feel we could have gone deeper into Shrek's internal plight or at least created a grander scale of events that the movie seems to suggest it wants to build on. Ultimately,  the movie kind of peters out rather than going out with a strong conclusive note. It's flawed, and certainly not as balanced, but I still liked it overall.

Now we come to what this article is really about. The secret of this series is not in the Shrek films themselves (at least for me). No, the biggest delight is in the spinoff, the Puss and Boots movies.

I'll admit to always liking the character in Shrek 2. I like cats. I like Antonio Banderas. I like swashbuckling adventures and fantasy in general. Someone must have really noticed the potential and ran with it. 

While the feline's first outing is pretty good, acting as sort of an origin story to the character, it's in the sequel that he really shines. Honestly, what surprised the most about these two movies is just how fundamentally different they are from the main movies.

Perhaps one reason I wasn't drawn from them was due to expecting more of the same satire but without the titular ogre. I had heard in passing the first movie was good, but with no ringing endorsements that I should rush out and watch it. No, it slipped under my radar as many good movies do. It's a shame because (and I'm not sure if this is a hot take or not) I think I enjoy these movies more than the Shrek films. 

This might be just do to the initial surprise they were actually pretty good movies, but that the tone was just not what I was expecting. Unlike the satire of Shrek, while there is some humor, these are much more straightforward, serious and fun adventure/fantasy stories. They took advantage of the melded fairy tale setting with an expanded world with set pieces. I particularly loved the ascent to the clouds to find the golden eggs. 

While the first movie is good, with the exception of an aspect of the ending that doesn't make much sense (even within the logic of the film), the second film truly blew me away.

I'm sure most people reading this probably know already, but in case you haven't seen it, just go for it. If you like fantasy or just good quality movies, I highly recommend it. While it benefits from the previous movie, you don't really need to see it or the main series to appreciate the story. The animation was wonderful, the humor was great and the themes were very poignant and complex. It may in fact be one of my favorite movies now. Time will tell.

So basically, the Shrek franchise didn't go as downhill as I feel I was led to believe over the years. Nice.