Superman (2025) – Review

It’s surprising that one of the characters that’s been the hardest for DC Comics to bring to the big screen is also their most iconic on the page.  Superman is undeniably one of the most well known comic book characters ever created, and probably the most famous one of all worldwide.  But, bringing him faithfully to the big screen has been somewhat of a challenge.  This is perhaps due to the fact that his first cinematic outing was just too hard of an act to follow.  Richard Donner’s Superman (1978) captured the character perfectly in a movie that honestly was the catalyst for the super hero boom that has happened in cinema over the last few decades.  While Donner’s direction was certainly a big part of making the film a success, the even bigger reason the movie worked as well as it did was because actor Christopher Reeve flawlessly embodied the character of Superman and made him a hero worth rooting for.  Reeve’s charm mixed in with his incredible physical presence really made us all believe that a man could fly.  And the part rightly came to define Reeve’s career, as well as his own life thereafter, especially after the tragic accident that left him paralyzed.  Over the years, DC and their parent company Warner Brothers came to realize that it was going to be very hard filling those bright red boots that Reeve wore on screen.  After the box office failure of the Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), it would be a whole 19 years before we would see Superman on the big screen again.  Unfortunately, Bryan Singer’s attempt at rebooting the franchise with Superman Returns (2006) was a pale imitation of Richard Donner’s original, despite a game performance from Brandon Routh taking over from Christopher Reeve.  While Superman was struggling to find his footing on film, his DC colleague Batman was taking charge at the box office thanks to Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy.  In order to capitalize on Batman’s success, Warner Brothers decided to apply it’s more gritty style to adaptations of all their Super Heroes, starting with Superman himself.  The studio looked to filmmaker Zach Snyder to revamp their iconic hero into something as iconic as their Batman, but this unfortunately didn’t work out as well as they hoped.

While Snyder’s Man of Steel (2013) did deliver some strong box office numbers, it was also sharply criticized for missing the point about the character.  In Man of Steel, Superman resorts to killing the villainous General Zod in order to save people who were in the supervillain’s line of fire.  This was antithetical to the many years of comic book lore that showed Superman as being pure of heart and never once resorting to murder, even in justifiable cases.  It was a case where Snyder was conforming the character to his own storytelling sensibilities, which fell into a gloomier and hard edged viewing of the world.  This kind of grit is fine for heroes like Batman, but just feels wrong for the character of Superman.  Unfortunately, DC and Warner Brothers meant for Man of Steel to be the launching off point for a cinematic universe akin to their rivals over at Marvel.  The fact that they started off with such a divisive film like Man of Steel as their foundation is a testament to why the DCEU (also known as the Snyderverse) ultimately failed.  And this was truly unfortunate given that they had cast an actor like Henry Cavill who if placed in a more faithful adaptation of Superman on the big screen could’ve been as great as Christopher Reeve.  But, with Snyder out at DC, it’s time to take another shot at bringing Superman to life on screen.  After his departure from Marvel, director James Gunn found a new and welcome home at DC, where he was granted the opportunity to do his take on The Suicide Squad (2021).  Though the movie’s box office was dampened due to the Covid pandemic, Gunn nevertheless received high marks for Suicide Squad, and DC was eager to work with him again.  He was granted a quick return to Marvel to close out his Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy before moving on this his next assignment, which became more than just one movie.  DC and Warner Brothers wanted him to take over as the Creative Director of their entire Cinematic Universe, becoming essentially DC’s equivalent of Kevin Feige over at Marvel.  Gunn would be the one who would decide which projects would be getting made, and it’s only natural that he would choose Superman to be the one who would help launch this new, revamped Cinematic Universe.  And, in taking on the duties of writer and director, he would be putting it on himself to get this relaunch on the right footing.  The only question is, does Superman soar or is cinema his unfortunate kryptonite.

In an interesting creative choice, James Gunn is re-launching Superman on the big screen without going over his entire backstory again like his previous films had.  In this version, we meet Superman (David Corenswet) as he is three years into the gig.  Despite being the world’s strongest hero, he still is struggling to do the right thing by saving as many people as he can.  He soon learns that a lot of his well intention deeds also run contrary to the rule of law.  In particular, his intervention between two warring nations called Boravia and Jarhanpur has made him run afoul of the US State department.  In order to reign in Superman, the government has granted billionaire tycoon Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) the opportunity to use his resources to contain Superman and hold him in captivity.  Lex has long resented Superman and other meta-humans that have called Earth their home, and he uses all the tools he has to bring Superman down.  Meanwhile, the reporters at the Daily Planet, where Superman works under his alias Clark Kent, are attempting to break apart the conspiracy that Lex has concocted in order to sour public opinion against Superman and learn about the whereabouts of where he’s being held prisoner.  Clark Kent’s colleague, and girlfriend, Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) even seeks help from a group of corporate sponsored Super Heroes who are under the working title of the “Justice Gang”  They include the Green Lantern Guy Gardener (Nathan Fillion), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) and the tech savvy Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi).  Another Daily Planet reporter, Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) has an insider source feeding him information on Lex Luthor’s duplicitous deeds.  Superman, over the course of these crucial days, must learn what is the most important part of being a super hero, which is to put the safety of others above his own self.  But he also must deal with the fact that someone like Lex Luthor will use his inate kindness against him, by forcing Superman to make unfair compromises that only end up serving Lex’s goals.  Can Superman still be the hero while being forced into the position where he has to make the toughest of choices in order to serve the greater good?

There’s a lot of pressure on James Gunn’s part to get this re-boot of Superman right.  Superman is a true icon, and the mishandling of the character over the last couple decades has in turn also doomed the larger plans for the cinematic universes that were to be built on his shoulders.  But, James Gunn has had a stellar track record at both Marvel and DC, and no one doubts that he can deliver a movie that both is revolutionary in it’s style while at the same time being faithful to the comics.  I’m happy to say that he does not disappoint with his version of Superman.  While it may not be my favorite film of his, I certainly do think he delivers a movie that does an honorable job of bringing Superman to life, while also still being entertaining in that very Gunn-esque way.  The movie has a fair share of laughs and bombastic action sequences, but at the same time it does what it needs to do to deliver us a compelling Superman story-line.  I would even say that this is the best we’ve seen of the “man of steel” since the Christopher Reeve days.  What Gunn really excels at here is a general sense of fun, which is what we also got from Richard Donner in his film.  But he isn’t just merely trying to ape what Donner did with his Superman, which was the fatal flaw of Bryan Singer’s version.  This is the same James Gunn sense of fun that we saw him use in both Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad.  It’s pleasing to see it apply so well to Superman and his narrative.  There’s not a cynical bone in this movie’s body.  When it wants to be profound, it earns it and when it wants to make a statement, it comes from a sincere place.  And for the most part, the humor lands.  The one flaw I would give this movie is that James Gunn seems to be wrapping his arms around a bit too much, to the point where I feel like some elements kind of lose impact as they get lost in the shuffle.  Some characters, especially Lois Lane, feel like their development was truncated a bit in order to fit more plot elements in.  For the most part, James Gunn manages to bring it all together in the end, but it’s a movie that does indeed throw a lot at you, and a few things do get forgotten in the process.  One thing that does help is that the movie hits the ground running right from the start, so that way we are not bogged down with too much exposition.  No origin story here, since it’s Superman and we should all know his beginnings by now.

And speaking of Superman, he is undoubtedly the movie’s greatest triumph.  A lot of the movie’s shortcomings are easily overlooked due to the fact that they managed to get the character right.  David Corenswet definitely fits the look of the character, with a wide build and tall frame.  But what he also does a great job with is making Superman relatable.  This movie gives a lot more time towards breaking down who Superman is as a person than perhaps any other version of the character we’ve seen.  The movie is far less about how Superman is going to save the day and more about what the day to day work of being a super hero does to him mentally.  This is a portrayal of the character that actually shows him to be vulnerable, showing that he is indeed more human than we think.  He’s put through a far more personal journey here, where the conflict revolves around whether he has a right to be the protector of this world despite not being from it originally.  James Gunn has stated in interviews that he views Superman’s story as an allegory for the immigrant experience.  For many immigrants, they have to work much harder in order to convince others that they should have a place in their new home.  Despite having grown up in Smallville America, Superman is still set apart due to his metahuman powers, and that sadly makes him a pariah to those who don’t like anyone different than them, including and especially Lex Luthor.  David Corenswet portrays this more vulnerable and relatable version of the character, being equal parts charming as well as physically imposing.  And he’s a perfect fit for what James Gunn wanted to explore with this character.  Christopher Reeve will still remain the gold standard of the character, much in the same way Sean Connery was for James Bond, but David’s portrayal perhaps comes the closest to reaching that high water mark.  Not that Henry Cavill and Brandon Routh were lightweights.  Those two were unfortunately the right guys at the wrong times, with movies failing to give them the opportunities to get the character right.

But it’s not just David Corenswet that delivers a great performance in this movie, as he is complimented by an excellent ensemble.  The biggest standout is Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor.  Luthor is a character that has long been neglected on the big screen.  You have to go all the way back to the Donner original with the late great Gene Hackman’s brilliant performance to find a worthy Luthor on the big screen.  Hoult’s portrayal here may be the best one we’ve seen yet.  He perfectly captures the pettiness of Luthor and makes him an absolute, irredeemable asshole in the movie.  It’s refreshing to see an unapologetic villain in one of these kinds of movies again, after there have been so many attempts at making sympathetic villains who unfortunately are never that interesting.  Hoult really does a great job of getting that smarmy bravado of an entitled brat that most mega billionaires usually end up being.  And kudos for actually shaving his head bald for this role too, because he does indeed look like the comic book character come to life.  There are a lot of other great performances here as well.  The “Justice Gang” are all fun personalities that add some flavor to the film.  Nathan Fillion (a James Gunn regular) gives a hilarious portrayal as a cocky, self-aggrandizing Green Lantern and Isabela Merced is also quite amusing in her Hawkgirl portrayal.  However, the standout is Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific.  The character is a fairly recent creation from DC and is not widely known to fans outside of the comic book world, but spotlighting obscure characters has been a specialty of James Gunn and he makes Mr. Terrific one of the film’s breakout characters.  Just like what he did with the Guardians characters, I’m sure Mr. Terrific will soon become a fan favorite for many people thanks to Mr. Gunn.  I also want to spotlight the brief appearances of Ma and Pa Kent (played by Neva Howell and Pruitt Taylor Vince respectively).  They are so adorably folksy in this film and really help to underline the heart of the movie, which is showing the simple beginnings that helped to shape Superman into who he is.

One of the biggest improvements Gunn has made to this adaptation of Superman is with the visuals.  One of the biggest complaints about the Snyderverse films was their washed out color palettes.  Instead of the vibrant colors that you would see on the comic book page, Zach Snyder just muted everything in metallic grays and blacks, which just did not fit with the character of Superman at all.  Superman as a character represents a beacon of hope, and beacons should shine brightly.  Thankfully, James Gunn has brought back rich and vibrant colors.  This is especially evident in the bright reds and deep blues of Superman’s outfit.  Also most of the movie takes place in broad daylight; another improvement over the perpetual twilight of Zach Snyder’s vision.  Like all of James Gunn’s other comic book adaptations, he wants to take what’s on the comic page and bring it to life.  And it’s the fearlessness of balancing the silly with the serious that has come to define his work.  I love that he embraces the weirder side of comic books, and he surprisingly manages to find appropriate places to make it work in Superman’s story.  One of the best visual gags in the movie is a tender scene between Clark and Lois taking place while the Justice Gang battles a monster outside in the background.  The juxtaposition is what James Gunn manages to perfectly handle in his films, and there are plenty of moments in the movie where there are extra details in the background that help to make the scenes a whole lot funnier.  Thankfully, Gunn isn’t too indulgent; he doesn’t resort to tons of Easter eggs that foreshadow future films in the franchise.  All of the surprises work in service towards the world-building and story being told.  But, there are some clever nods to Richard Donner’s Superman thrown in here and there, and the movie also incorporates some of John Williams iconic theme into it’s musical score.  There also seems to be some little jabs at the Snyderverse as well, especially in a scene where Superman goes out of his way to avoid creating city wide destruction.  Overall, it demonstrates the high quality attention to detail that James Gunn has developed as a filmmaker working in this medium of comic book films.

It’s an unenviable task that James Gunn has put himself in having to set this new era of DC comic book movies on the right footing.  He was to win over a lot of fans, many of whom are growing fatigued over the abundance of comic book media we have had over the last decade.  The unfortunate thing is that his re-boot is coming on the heels of the demise of the very divisive Snyderverse.  The die-hard Zach Snyder fans are already getting their knives out to tear this new movie apart.  And if this movie doesn’t perform well, it could halt James Gunn’s long term plans for DC as a result.  Thankfully, the forecasts are indicating that Superman is poised to have a strong opening weekend.  How it performs beyond that is anyone’s guess, but hopefully it does well enough to instill confidence at Warner Brothers to get the ball rolling on all the future plans for Gunn’s DC Universe.  I for one feel like this is a good place to start, as the movie is just a fun, adventurous ride that is worthy of the Superman name.  You need a strong foundation to build a multi-film franchise, much like what Iron Man (2008) did for Marvel, and what was missing from the Snyderverse from the get go.  It’s not perfect, but what it gets right it gets very right.  David Corenswet makes for a great “man of steel” and I can’t wait to see him play this character again, including in future films that will inevitably reintroduce us to the Justice League.  It gets me excited because if they can get Superman right, then the rest of DC’s greatest heroes will also get much improved adaptations as well.  One thing you can really tell from this movie is James Gunn’s love for this cinematic universe.  He’s not some cynical director for hire.  He loves these characters and he wants us to love them all too.  Sure, DC still has a lot of catching up to do to be where Marvel is, but with Gunn in charge things are lookin bright, especially if we see more results like this.  And that in turn will help Marvel too, because nothing works better to improve the quality of your product than having a strong competitor be your motivator.  James Gunn’s Superman is one of this summer’s most satisfying blockbuster experiences and a fun time at the movies that thankfully makes us believe that a man can fly again, and hopefully for a good long time after.

Rating: 8.5/10

What the Hell Was That? – Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Independence Day (1996) was a fairly monumental film when it first came out.  It broke new ground in the field of visual effects and managed to supercharge the careers of the actors starring in it.  But, at the same time, no one would ever consider it a masterpiece by any means.  The film was co-written and directed by a frequent name that appears in this series of articles, Roland Emmerich, and though Emmerich has demonstrated himself to be a very flawed filmmaker over the years, Independence Day does present him at his best.  A lot of the flaws in storytelling that plague most of Emmerich’s movies are present in this (his most successful film) as well, but it’s balanced out with an overall general sense of fun and creativity that defined most of his earlier films.  Independence Day was Emmerich’s third studio made film, as well as his third collaboration with co-writer and producer Dean Devlin.  With the success of 1992’s Universal Soldier and 1994’s Stargate, the duo were quickly becoming the hottest team in Hollywood, and it helped them to get 20th Century Fox behind their ambitious alien invasion epic.  Independence Day captured the imagination of audiences with it’s foreboding atmosphere; creating a vision of interstellar invasion from hostile forces that dwarfed anything we had seen on the big screen before.  There’s nothing more provocative in selling a film called Independence Day than making the image of the White House being blown to bits by a 15 mile wide UFO it’s money shot.  But, apart from the imagery, the remainder of the film was, to put it lightly, unsubtle and prone to cliché.  But, audiences didn’t care because the movie still made it feel like you were going on a ride.  It was loud, jingoistic and manipulative, but also crowd-pleasing and in many cases very beautiful to look at.  It was the very definition of a popcorn movie and it indeed lived up to the hype by becoming at the time one of the highest grossing films of all time.  And like all smash box office hits, audiences were anxious to see more.  Surprisingly, Emmerich and Devlin didn’t immediately jump at the opportunity to create a sequel, only choosing to go further if they could find the right story.  Almost 20 years later, they finally did, but as we would learn, it may have been better to leave the story be.

In the 20 years after Independence Day released into theaters, Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich had much less success as filmmakers.  Somehow, Roland has been able to gain financing for all of his projects, but his box office success has fallen way short of his early days, and today his track record is marked more by box office bombs than hits.  You can also see him trying to recapture that Independence Day magic as most of his films like The Day After Tomorrow (2004), 2012 (2009) and Moonfall (2022) all basically feature the same plot; humanity saved by the end of the world by maverick hot shot fighters and enlightened nerds that no one listened to before.  The creative partnership between Devlin and Emmerich also came to an end, with them parting ways after making The Patriot (2000).  Even though the two were taking separate paths, they still held onto the idea of returning to the Independence Day universe.  But the further distance they put between it and a sequel, they more they would risk missing the moment when it would become a success.  Cinema changed very quickly in the years after Independence Day‘s release and so did the world for that matter.  The imagery of the film, which included notable landmarks like the White House and the Empire State building being blown up just weren’t going to work anymore in a world that witnessed the 9/11 attacks happen in real life.  If a sequel to Independence Day was to occur, it had to be very different in order to not be trauma inducing.  But, the team of Emmerich and Devlin also had to contend.  With an audience that had kind of moved away from science fiction films like Independence Day.  Blockbuster films in the new millennium were shifting from sci-fi to fantasy with the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films leading the charge and then eventually super hero movies were all the rage in the following decade thanks to Marvel and DC.  Independence Day was becoming more and more a relic of it’s time, but with some still potent nostalgia flavored into it.  Eventually, Emmerich and Devlin settled on a story they wanted to tell, and it would involve not one but two sequels with a two part storyline.

Instead of picking up right where the first film left off, these new sequels would embrace the gap in time, and show how humanity responded to it’s near apocalyptic encounter with the alien invaders.  In one of the sequel’s better ideas, we see how humanity has deconstructed the alien technology from the downed wreckage of their ships, and have since used that tech to make advancements of their own.  It’s a logical narrative step that helps to differentiate the film from the original.  Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t do much else with that idea.  Yeah, the ships that the Earth’s military forces use are more sleek and high tech, but the film is also pretty inconsistent with it’s world-building, and it still shows a lot of low tech things like gas powered cars and present day warships still being used.  It’s basically the filmmakers deciding when to use high technology in the story when it’s there to look cool and forgetting pretty much anywhere else it might make sense to have it.   This element in particular is a big reason why the sequel falls apart.  Emmerich seems only interested in hitting all the familiar beats of the story, while ignoring the foundation which made them work in the first place.  The jump in time and the advancement of humanity in those years could have made for an interesting dynamic change in the story that could have made it a very different kind of movie that could stand independent of the original.  But, no, in order to get Fox behind this follow-up, he pretty much just made the original all over again, just with a bigger scale to it.  It otherwise undermines the idea of there being a more advanced society in this story when the aliens themselves have come with a bigger ship.  They don’t even change the way that the characters try to take out the aliens; they send a ship inside the mothership with the plan to blow it up again from the inside.  It makes you wonder why they advanced their technology at all when they just try to do the same thing again.

It’s pretty clear from the get go that Independence Day: Resurgence was a doomed project.  The studio immediately balked at the idea of shooting two sequels back to back and instead opted to make the one with a wait and see policy with regards to the third.  So, Resurgence was put into the production with the hope that Emmerich and Devlin could re-ignite the magic of the original film and hopefully turn this into a franchise that could go on for many years afterward.  But one big roadblock derailed this at the beginning.  If there was one movie star from the original film that could easily help lift this franchise, it was Will Smith.  Of all the actors from the first Independence Day, Smith had the best post-movie boost.  He became a big box office star thanks to other hit films like Men in Black (1997) Hitch (2005) and I Am Legend (2007).  And there was no doubt that his star power was greatly increased by his starring role in the original Independence Day.  So, having him on board for these sequels would easily give them a boost thanks to his devoted following of fans.  Unfortunately, Will Smith bowed out of returning to this franchise.  He cited that there would have been a scheduling conflict with this and his role in David Ayer’s Suicide Squad (2016), which was shooting at the same time.  It’s probably true, but one can’t also help to think that Will Smith might have also seen the writing on the wall with the overall lack of interest there was for a movie like this.  His track record with sequels had also been pretty spotty, with the Men in Black films under-performing.  This wouldn’t have been a problem for Emmerich and Devlin had they had a plan B if one of their original actors didn’t return.  Unfortunately, their original script, the one that got the greenlight from Fox, centered around Smith’s character Capt. Hiller.  With that poor moment of hindsight becoming a problem, the two had to quickly rewrite their script in order to write Capt. Hiller out of the movie.  What we get is an unceremonious off screen death with the character of his son, played now as a grown up by actor Jesse T. Usher, taking up his place in the story.  Usher tries his best to fill that vacancy, but his character is also lacking in much of the charisma that helped to set Will Smith’s performance apart in the original.  So, like all doomed sequels, Independence Day: Resurgence was put into production in a frenzy that never quite coalesced together.

The movie still got many of it’s legacy actors to come back, but a lot of them had their characters unnecessarily altered in a bit of regression based on where we left them before.  Jeff Goldblum’s David Levinson fares the best as his character has risen to the level of head of the Earth’s Defense Force; an upgrade from his position as a satellite engineer who decodes the alien tech from the first film.  Robert Loggia (in his final film role) also makes a memorable return as General William Gray.  But, other legacy actors aren’t so lucky.  Judd Hirsch returns as David’s over-bearing father, and the movie weirdly turns him into more of a comic relief character that gets into shenanigans after surviving the destruction of the aliens with a family of orphaned kids.  Hirsch’s performance in the original was much more grounded while at the same time making him a funny personality and confidant to his son.  But here, he’s just a cartoon character and it’s a waste of a great talent like his.  Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore is also downgraded in this film, showing him mentally unstable in the 20 years after the last invasion.  It’s a far cry from the inspirational figure he posed in the original film, which showed him as a steadfast leader who rose to the challenge.  It is nice to see all of these actors back together again, but the movie seems to treat them disrespectfully.  Vivica A. Fox barely even gets a couple of lines in before her character is unceremoniously killed off.  And unfortunately, none of the new characters are interesting enough to carry the weight of the rest of the film.  Liam Hemsworth is a pale imitation of the swagger that Will Smith brought to the story and the aforementioned Jesse T. Usher is barely a character as well.  There was also a bit of controversy surrounding the recasting of Maika Monroe as President Whitmore’s daughter Patricia.  It was believed that Mae Whitman, who played the part in the original at age 8 and has had a successful acting career ever since, was passed over because she wasn’t deemed “conventionally pretty” enough for this film.  How much of that is true is unknown, but fans were a bit outraged.  Whitman herself has stayed above the controversy and has avoided commenting on it.  And of course, the movie makes a baffling decision to bring back Brent Spiner as Dr. Okun.  Yes, Star Trek alum Spiner is a beloved character actor, but his presence here makes no sense as his character was shown to be choked to death by one of the aliens in the original.  The sequel’s explanation: he was in a 20 year coma.  One of the many examples of lazy writing throughout.

One of the other things that doomed the project is that while it tries to advance the film with the standards of the time, it actually feels like a regression as well.  The original Independence Day was certainly a breakthrough for CGI digital effects, many of which still look fairly good nearly 30 years later.  But, it’s also important to remember that much of it worked because it was backed up with a lot of incredible practical effects too.  Those exploding buildings from the alien attacks were all done with scale models, helping to give the destruction a really tactile feel to them.  The puppeteering of the alien in the frightening autopsy scene also gives the movie an incredible looking creature that was handcrafted by some talented artisans.  When we think of visual effects from that era, it encompassed a lot more than just what was programmed into a computer.  Unfortunately, a lot of that practical movie magic has been usurped by CGI over the years, and Roland Emmerich unfortunately has been one of those filmmakers that has ditched practical effects more and more over time.  This is very evident in Resurgence as a everything from the alien mothership, to the city wide destruction, to the aliens themselves are now all done with CGI animation.  The thinking is that it should look better, but it doesn’t.  The tactileness is gone and replaced with a lot of vaguely discernable CGI mayhem.  Roland would probably argue that the movie is more impressive because CGI has allowed them to make everything bigger in scale.  But bigger isn’t always better.  The mothership in this film is as big as a moon, and is capable of generating it’s own gravity.  And yet, we don’t feel the same dread about it landing on Earth as we did with the smaller 15 mile wide ships.  That’s because the ship is honestly too big to convey, so all we get is a lot of the sky on fire as it lands.  It’s nowhere near as scary as those massive discs of metal piercing through the clouds and hovering menacingly over the city.  The same goes for the alien creatures as well, which were also given CGI makeovers.  In this film, we finally meet the alien Queen, who is massive in size, and she is nowhere near as menacing as the smaller ones we saw in the original.  Overall, Roland is trying to do everything he did before in the original with computer animation, and it makes his film feel less real and in addition the aliens much less scary.

With a lot of legacy sequels, the question inevitably comes up to this: Why?  Why make a sequel to this so many years later.  Most of the time, the answer simply is money.  Studios want to capitalize on established IP, and they’ll dig deep into their libraries in order to make something old new again.  But, most of the time, it doesn’t work.  Sure, there are examples of making legacy sequels that not only live up to the original, but also somehow manage to surpass it, like Top Gun: Maverick (2022).  But most of the time, the result is something like Independence Day: Resurgence, which just feels like an empty imitation of what once was.  And the original film was not exactly an all time classic either.  For a lot of audiences, Independence Day was a fun diversion that featured some at the time cutting edge visual effects and a few semi-inspirational moments that made them want to root for the heroes.  But, let’s not forget that the story and the characters were paper thin generic archetypes that were merely there to string together the action set pieces.  Independence Day is enjoyable as a visual effects spectacle, but over time it has also become something of a joke too with it’s many cliches.  For some, that’s part of the enjoyment as well because it gives the movie some campy value.  Essentially, Independence Day: Resurgence is what happens when you do the same movie, but take out all the things that made it fun in the first place, including the stuff that became fun ironically.  And the very insulting part is that the movie insists on us treating the film more respectfully than it deserves.  This is due to the fact that it’s trying to build lore that they hoped would help turn this into a franchise on the same level of say a Star Wars.  We weren’t interested in that back in the original and we are less so now.  The appeal of the alien invasion storyline from the original is that we know so little about who the aliens are and why they want our planet.  In Resurgence, we get introduced to a new concept of another alien race of non-organic beings that are also at war with the bad aliens, personified by a mysterious super intelligent orb called the Sphere.  At the end of the film, after the Queen alien is defeated, the movie arrogantly sets up the next chapter with the humans teaming up with the Sphere to take the fight to the aliens’ home world.  Yep, it’s another one of those franchise hopeful movies that ends on a cliffhanger that we’ll never see resolved.

It’s no surprise that Independence Day: Resurgence did not perform as well as it’s predecessor.  The movie flopped and was pretty much dismissed by both critics and audiences alike.  And in my personal opinion, it is one of the worst sequels in recent memory, ranking as the worst movie on my list from that year.  Sadly, there is an argument to be made that a sequel to this could have worked, but due to too much time passing and things not lining up the way they should’ve, we got this compromised movie that doesn’t do anything special and is entirely a waste of time and talent.  For the sake of the original film, the fact that this movie is so forgettable is a blessing, as it doesn’t take away from it’s entertainment value.  It seems like everyone has just agreed to ignore it.  Even Roland Emmerich considers making the movie a mistake, saying that they shouldn’t have moved forward after Will Smith passed on the project.  I mostly feel bad for the actors, a lot of whom just look lost in the movie.  What they did to Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch’s characters feels especially insulting to the legacy of those characters, who while they weren’t exactly the deepest of characters in the original were still a bit more dignified than they are presented here.  Also, there’s a rather unnecessary bit of queer-baiting done in the movie as they reveal that Spiner’s Dr. Okun had a same-sex partner this whole time.  Emmerich himself made a big deal that he was writing a gay character into his movie, but while the intention is good thing, the execution is pathetic as we only learn about Dr. Okun’s relationship late in the movie, with it ultimately being meaningless in the long run.  If you can’t commit the whole way, then stop going partway and falsely claim that you are breaking barriers.  All that aside, it’s a pathetic and insulting attempt at building a franchise out of a just passable enough popcorn flick from the past.  It’s much better to just re-watch the original even with all of it’s flaws.  Indepndence Day: Resurgence is yet another in the long line of cinematic travesties brought to the big screen by Mr. Roland Emmerich, and unfortunately this was one that reflected back poorly on one of the few good movies that he had made in the past.