SUPERMAN (129 mins., PG-13) has had a rough time of it since Christopher Reeve hung up the cape. First, director Bryan Singer tried and failed with his weird “stalker” Superman (Brandon Routh) in “Superman Returns” (2006), done as a faux sequel to the Alexander Salkind productions, paying a superficial homage to them but without the intrinsic humanity and “verismitilitude” that director Richard Donner instilled in his 1978 classic. Zack Snyder’s 2013 “Man of Steel” offered a more serious approach, rebooting the character with a convincing Henry Cavill, yet in the midst of Snyder’s gritty, dark adaptation of the DC Comics characters — a controversial take which ultimately came apart over creative differences and a “Justice League” project infamously taken away from him (before being handed back as one of the weirdest “moral victories” in cinema history).

Needing a big hit, Warner Bros. has now turned their attention to James Gunn, one of the only directors who took a Marvel property and was able — thanks to its relative obscurity — to make a movie on his own terms seemingly with little studio interference. His “Guardians of the Galaxy” adapted strange, offbeat source material and turned it into one of the comic book movie genre’s shining success stories, working in humor and a grounded, humanistic approach to its characters despite its wild, fanciful settings.

Gunn’s eagerly awaited “Superman” seeks to do the same — and it largely succeeds — despite some pacing issues, easily ranking as of the best films of its kind in many, many years.

Certainly it’s the closest anyone on the big screen has gotten to reprising the sense of goodness, humor and humanity that Christopher Reeve and his Superman pictures did back in the late ’70s and ’80s. Gunn understands what makes the Man of Steel tick, and presents Clark Kent on-screen in the form of David Corenswet, who presents an instantly appealing, likeable Superman at the beginning of his heroic journey. Like Reeve, Corenswet exudes decency without seeming rigid and “alien”, and the picture works best when it depicts Superman’s quest to understand his place in the human world and whether, despite his Kryptonian origins, he’s part of it.

The plot has an awful lot going on but, to Gunn’s credit, he balances it all with the same kind of grace and good humor that infused his take on “Guardians.” This “Superman” opens up in a new DC universe that’s already been partially pre-established, with Superman fighting crime and Lex Luthor (Nicolas Hoult) looking to exploit international politics for his own gain. Once Clark — already established at the Daily Planet and dating Lois (Rachel Brosnanhan) — gets himself involved in the global conflict, an already irritated Luthor vows to wedge himself between the people’s love for their adopted super-hero and remove him entirely from the equation. This he attempts to accomplish with his own genetically enhanced “Ultraman” and a nano-tech infused former soldier, all the better to do battle with Superman and the fledgling “Justice Gang” trio of Green Lantern, Hawkgirl and Mr. Terrific.

One of the smartest things about Gunn’s “Superman” script is that it throws you into a new “DC Universe” that’s already in motion. The supporting “Justice Gang” heroes are about town too, but there’s no pause — or need — for the movie to stop and provide an origin for all of them. Nor is there for Superman himself, for that matter — we’ve seen baby Supes’ escape from Krypton so many times it’s not necessary to render it on-screen at this stage, and being able for the viewer to jump straight into the action serves the audience and the movie well.

So too does an approach that praises the humanity in all things, not just people, which worked for Gunn before and it does so here: creations like Krypto the Wonder-Dog and a group of robots who populate the Fortress of Solitude all have a built-in heart and pulse, which registers all the more thanks to Corenswet’s performance and Gunn’s script. Gunn lets Superman be decent, and have a sense of humor, even without knowing all the answers — that’s what was missing from the pretentious, virtually Christ-like portrayals of Superman in the Singer and Snyder pictures. Clark is always looking for the best in people — even Luthor himself — and that sense of goodness, hard to project on-screen without coming off as being preachy, is what separates Superman from other comic book heroes, and always has.

Not every element in the movie works: reported pre-release cuts create a ragged-feeling first hour that has a stop/start kind of quality to the pacing, and the ending does, partially, devolve into another succession of CGI fisticuffs we’ve all seen before. The score also is weak, essentially providing the same beats that permeated the movie’s trailer with contemporary riffs running under flourishes of John Williams’ original theme — yet none of these elements damage the picture and its lovely final scene, which strikes the right note in finding the true heart of the character and his enduring appeal. “Super” indeed. (B+)

JURASSIC PARK REBIRTH (133 mins., PG-13): Mercenary Scarlet Johansson leads a team including doctor Jonathan Bailey into the only place where dinosaurs still flourish — down near the equator, and in particular, an abandoned InGen island where dino hybrids and mutants still live…and offer a potential cure for heart disease, provided the group can nab a trio of speciments predictably from the most dangerous beasties on the isle.

“Godzilla” 2014 director Gareth Edwards succeeds where too many of his predecessors failed with this apparent “standalone” entry in the long-running “Jurassic” series — bringing the series back to its “mysterious jungle island” roots and a straight-ahead survival story absent the eco-pretensions of the “Jurassic World” trilogy. Writer David Koepp’s script is far more mature and uncluttered than the last few installments, cross-cutting the group’s mission with a family just trying to stay alive after being shipwrecked in the same area, while Alexandre Desplat’s score is classy enough, with a flew John Williams shutouts for good measure.

There’s no attempt to reinvent the cinematic wheel here, so “Rebirth”‘s focus is on action and set-pieces, and Edwards delivers in that regard with aplomb. In fact, this is the best-looking movie since Spielberg’s 1993 original (kudos to cinematographer John Mathieson as well for his impressive widescreen lensing), with Edwards employing a sense of scale missing from previous “Park” sequels and delivering big-time action at a consistent rate. A raft sequence intended for the ’93 film is at last staged and delivers the goods, while the creatures are brilliantly detailed and there’s just enough story and human interest (plus a cute little triceratops dubbed “Dolores”) to go around.

“Rebirth” may not convince weary audiences that there was a creative need for this picture, but this is the kind of straight-ahead survival thriller that some fans were hoping for. After several bloated — albeit financially successful — outings, there’s life in this “World” yet. (B)

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – THE FINAL RECKONING (169 mins., PG-13): Do film editors exist anymore? You could have literally cut nearly the entire first hour of this supposedly last Mission: Impossible installment out and created a better viewing experience. It wouldn’t have been difficult either, choosing to open up this movie where the previous entry ended, with Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) heading into a lost Russian sub, trying to retrieve the source code for a sentient AI that’s about to blow the world to smithereens. Alas, while what’s here ends well, on balance, this sequel still isn’t nearly as strong as the previous series entry, “Dead Reckoning.”

It’s something that’s particularly puzzling given the complaints about its immediate predecessor’s run time. In fact, this sequel comes off much worse in that regard, because instead of action scenes that tended to overstay their welcome, this sequel’s opening act is all exposition instead — endless talk and set-up, with ample recycled footage from the previous entry, as well as shots from Brian DePalma’s 1996 franchise-starter for good measure.

While callbacks from the latter are understandable since it’s been so long since most viewers have seen the first MI, surely there had to have been a better, more concise way to remind people what was going on in the last sequel and get audiences into this film. Alas, that eludes Tom Cruise and his returning director Christopher McQuarrie here, and it’s a deadly way to start what should have been a nice way to cap the entire series.

The rest of the movie is reasonably fun once it gets moving but also doesn’t do anything unexpected. Big set-pieces including Cruise jumping from one plane to another are all impressive in the series’ traditional style, yet there’s something very “confined” about this particular picture — like, where are all the extras? The sense of scale? Outdoor scenes where, I dunno, people are walking about? It’s like the movie was still being shot in a COVID bubble, as it’s heavily confined to sets instead of the globe-trotting adventure all the other films in the franchise contained. In nearly every way, this picture is inferior to the film that came before it.

The end result has its moments (and the return of one side character from the series’ most memorable set-piece is highly amusing), but is let down by the opening act pacing and other elements (what was the point of Angela Bassett’s son?) that would’ve been better off on the cutting room floor. Esai Morales’ “Snivly Whiplash” villainy, ultimately, doesn’t seem like it was substantive enough to comprise two different films as well, and the lack of support on his side of the drama this time out is also a shortcoming.

Ultimately, “Final Reckoning” doesn’t really give Ethan Hunt the big-bang sendoff he deserved, in a flabby sequel that works best if you walk in 45 minutes late. (C+)

NEXT TIME: Arrow springs Stallone’s COBRA on 4K UHD! Until then, don’t forget to drop in on the official Aisle Seat Message Boards and direct any emails to our email address. Cheers everyone!