Master’s of the Universe has the Power to Change Film Adaptations

By Caoimhe McCloskey

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS!

Masters of the Universe (Knight, 2026) is a film that is built with an intense loyalty and love for the source material it adapts. There is a great awareness of this, and instead of adjusting what made it great back then to what might be great now, it leans into it instead. In my opinion, this was a great and refreshing move from the filmmakers. For context, the source material, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, was an animated series from the 1980’s and 1990’s telling the story of Prince Adam of Eternia, who uses the Sword of Power to become He-Man, defending his world from evil. Given the time period, many story lines, character depictions/names and other elements can be seen by today’s standards as, to put it kindly… wacky. 

Of course, that is to say that fun can’t be found today in modern cinema; however, when it comes to adaptations, especially from comic books and superheroes, modern filmmakers tend to adjust the tone of the stories they present from generally light-hearted and fun to more on the serious side, for example, Snyder’s DC Universe films. That being said, there has been a resurgence of whimsy, go-getting protagonists from the hero genre (thank you, James Gunn), and this film is another recent example of that.

Masters of the Universe showcases the origin story of He-Man (played by Nicholas Galitzine), how he got his moniker after fifteen years away from his homeland. With the help of childhood friend Teela (Camila Mendes) and his old mentor, Duncan (Idris Elba), he comes face to face with antagonist, Skeletor (Jared Leto), to take back his now shattered home from ruin.

The film’s tone is much more fun and light-hearted than its predecessors in the genre. While at times, I did think it leaned more into cringey territory, the more I accepted the goofy, the more I realised that this was intentional. Again, the film acknowledges and leans into what made the original so great with instances of other characters making fun of and judging the names that Adam gives them (e.g. Fisto, Ram Man, Trap Jaw, etc.). There is also a moment near the end of the film where a group of characters stand around in a circle and laugh together in what can only be described as robotic, stiff and very intentionally rehearsed. But that’s the point. 

The film calls out, quite frankly, the cowardice seen in recent cinema, of the stigma that film, that storytelling cannot be fun anymore and must remain monochrome, serious and arguably, rather dull. A comparison I could make is in reference to books and literature. The romance genre and it’s subgenere’s and branches are incredibly popular (particularly within TikTok/BookTok) and yet often times see ridicule and underestimation from those who simply don’t appreciate the beauty of the genre. As an avid romance reader myself, this stigma tends to have me feel cautious in sharing my love of the genre, not in fear, but there is the awareness that judgment could follow, and in the past, it has. I think this pattern can be transferred to film in the sense that in order to accommodate to a new audience, modern filmmakers somehow believe that stripping away the original source’s enjoyment, whimsy, silliness and comedy. 

A story can be fun while also harbouring stakes for the characters. 

Speaking of character, the casting of this film is incredible. Nicholas Galitzine perfectly captures the comedy and dread that the character requires, as mentioned earlier. Adam in this film is clumsy, slightly naive, but curious, determined and very endearing to the audience. Camila Mendes as Teela is also a standout; I think this film is a great addition to her filmography (it certainly helps disengage her from particular past projects). Idris Elba gives a consistent performance, nothing unexpected.

Is it the best writing? No. However, the film takes itself seriously enough to remember where it came from and acknowledges the aspects from home that didn’t age well. That, in my opinion, is much stronger and more influential than practically rewriting characters for the sake of modern ‘expectations’.

Rating: 3.5/5