A lot of internal contradictions here and a clear misunderstanding of what actually makes Superman who he is.

First off, physical weakness is not what makes Superman human. It’s his moral com, humility, and his choice to connect with people, despite his godlike powers, that make him relatable. Superman isn’t great because he can be hurt; he’s great because he chooses to do the right thing, even when he doesn’t have to.

You say he’s powerful, but still praise the scenes where he’s helpless, injured, or being rescued. You can’t have it both ways. Either he’s strong, or he’s not. You can’t eat your cake and have it.

Cherry-picking comic book moments doesn’t help your case either. A scene where Superman opens up to a civilian about his feelings isn’t the same as him getting beat down and needing Krypto to carry him home. Those are completely different kinds of vulnerability.

Honestly, the whole article feels like it’s based on personal taste and bias, not any real understanding of the character or the source material.

Superman is not supposed to be a god above people or a broken martyr. He’s meant to be a symbol of hope because of his strength, not in spite of it. His humanity lives in his values, not in his bruises.

Talmbout “more human” when he never was, never is, and never will be human, as long as he’s Superman.

If the article had said that this Superman is up against the most dangerous villains he’s ever faced, maybe the worst aliens in the universe, then sure, him being pushed to the edge would make more sense. That would at least justify the struggle.

But at the end of the day, this just doesn’t feel like a proper review. It reads more like a personal opinion dressed up as a deep take. Prefering a softer, more emotional version of Superman is fine. But pretending that preference means the movie “understands” the character better than past versions? That doesn’t really hold up. A more honest take would’ve been “This is the version I like"