The drama surrounding DC’s first attempt at a cinematic superhero universe is well-documented and going over the ins and outs of its rise and fall would take forever. In a nutshell, DC was put in the hands of Zack Snyder who attempted to do something to distinguish DC from its well-established competition at Marvel. The results were pretty great, that is until Snyder had the keys taken away in an effort to mirror Marvel’s success rather than offer a contrast to it. From there things fell apart pretty quickly.

Now DC is trying again by bringing in Marvel and DC alum James Gunn to head an entire reboot of their properties. For many of us, Gunn wasn’t the most encouraging choice considering his previous swings at franchise superhero movies (“Guardians of the Galaxy”, “The Suicide Squad”) were team-based stories laced with heavy amounts of humor. How that would translate to running a full-scale cinematic universe would be anyone’s guess.

Gunn kicks off his tenure by writing and directing DC’s signature character, Superman. Once again, Gunn isn’t the first person I would expect to be handed the keys to the iconic Man of Steel. But as a fan of the character and DC overall, I went in hopeful for a movie that would do him justice and get the DC Universe off on the right foot. Unfortunately, “Superman” quickly turns into a frustrating and often baffling mix of missteps and shortcuts.

“Superman” is riddled with nagging issues that include an overstuffed story, underdeveloped characters, head-scratching plot contrivances, and some needless liberties with the lore that fail to have the impact intended. Even worse, at times the movie feels as if it’s made for fans of James Gunn rather than fans of Superman. From the overly jokey tone to cameos featuring several of his buddies, you can often see Gunn more focused on putting his stamp on the property than telling a great Superman story.

Gunn starts by bypassing the origin stuff which most of us know by heart. His story is set three years after Superman (David Corenswet) first revealed himself to Earth. Apparently his most amazing feats happened in that three-year window prior to the events of the movie. I say that because we don’t get to see any of them. Instead we spend most of the time watching Superman getting beaten to a pulp. In fact, the very first scene has him crashing down after being destroyed by a metahuman working for billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult).

Speaking of Lex, here Superman’s powerful archenemy is turned into an underwritten brat whose motives are murky at best and incoherent at worse. Lex is already in a position of enormous power and influence, although how he got there is all but avoided. What we do learn is that he’s an arms dealer, he may be involved in a budding war between two neighboring nations, and he has a petty (masked as maniacal) hatred for Superman. Lex somehow has massive pull within the United States government and he can somehow sway public opinion just by appearing on a corny talk show.

Of course a big part of Superman’s story involves his life as Clark Kent. He’s once again a reporter at the Daily Planet alongside Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan). The movie begins with the two already romantically involved and with Lois aware of Clark’s superhero identity. Sadly their relationship doesn’t go anywhere beyond what we’ve seen before. Meanwhile the Daily Planet crew features such familiar names as editor-in-chief Perry White (Wendell Pierce), the busty Cat Grant (Mikaela Hoover), and Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) who’s shackled to one of the film’s weirdest and most underdeveloped angles.

Adding to the assembly line of characters are three super-powered metahumans, Guy Gardner AKA Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), and Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). Guy calls them the “Justice Gang” which becomes a running joke that quickly runs out of gas. Nothing about them as a team seems thought out past the comic bits Gunn squeezes out of them. Only Mr. Terrific gets any meaningful time to semi-develop.

There are several other problems that are at least worth mentioning. There are some wonky digital effects. Nearly all the stakes come across as manufactured rather than organic. There is a surprising lack of emotion throughout the movie. Ma and Pa Kent are thrown in for sentimental effect but are glaringly inconsequential. Most of humanity are inadvertently depicted as insanely dumb and gullible. Even Krypto the dog is fumbled. He should be a cheap and easy way to get reactions from the audience. But Gunn doesn’t know when to let off the gas, and the CGI dog’s cutesy comic relief gets a bit old.

It pains me to say, but James Gunn’s “Superman” misses nearly every mark it aims for. And there are A LOT of marks as Gunn spends most of his time throwing ideas onto the screen rather than having them make sense within a cohesive story. He even takes an ax to some long-established lore only to get nothing out of it. Meanwhile the performances are simply fine, with no one being either terrific or terrible. To be fair, it’s no fault of the cast. It’s the writing and direction that lets them down.

Going back to my comic book days, I’ve long been a bigger fan of DC than Marvel. So much so that even with my concerns, I was willing to receive a new Man of Steel with open arms. But “Superman” is a disappointing reinvention of an iconic character so many love. In fact, calling this iteration “SUPERman” seems incredibly generous. Gunn’s attempts at capturing the essence of the character while shaping a new Superman in his image will probably payoff at the box office. But it’s hardly the fitting reintroduction this DC Comics pillar deserves. “Superman” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 2 STARS