|
|
|
|
• • • select a page • • •
IntroductionThe Rating SystemBests and WorstsINDEX OF MOVIES:supplement:
|
| • • • | other content on paulkienitz.net |
• • • |
|
Other B Movies |
|
Current Events
|
|
Personal Home Page |
|
Send mail to
|
| Also on this page:
Superman II Superman III Superman IV: The Quest for Peace Superman Returns |
|
SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE (1978)The first big-budget spectacular comic book film, and the first to show how to do it right. Christopher Reeve was a considerable cut above any previous actor to have donned long-johns and a cape to fight Communism, and the extensive Americana background in the early portion of the film carries surprising authenticity and sincerity, especially considering how corny the whole script often is. The TV show Smallville clearly owes its entire existence to that opening segment, with the same kind of style and tone, and various small things in common, such as young Clark Kent's red jacket, and the absence of certain superpowers posessed by the adult Superman. (They also hired Annette O'Toole to play Martha Kent, who played Lana Lang in Superman III.)
This film succeeds in creating a real sense of epic scope, in a way that almost no other early comic book movie does. And I like Margot Kidder (a minority opinion, I know). So what if Brando was paid millions to "phone in a part", as Reeve put it? Ned Beatty makes up for it -- they casted him as the worst kind of Odious Comic Relief, and he turns the role into something genuinely enjoyable, thanks largely to his interplay with Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, who has many comic scenes in the early stages of his conflict with Superman.
This was the first film to treat the super-situations as seriously and realistically as this, and its release is the dividing point that separates the modern comic book films from the primitive. (Not that they stopped making primitive ones, of course.) But there are several embarrassing moments -- the scene where Kidder as Lois Lane recites romantic song lyrics as she's hauled through the sky being the most painful -- and today, the super-action is no longer remarkable. Many of the effects have aged poorly. Especially those in outer space, which are just ludicrous.
For decades -- right up until The Dark Knight -- this remained the best film anybody had managed to make for a DC Comics character. Which is just sad. Marvel, on the other hand, had no trouble coming up with winners during that time.
For more about appearances by Superman in film, see the serials and TV pages.
SUPERMAN II (1980)I recently had occasion to re-watch this, and was forced to rate it even lower than I had before. It's hard to believe that at one time this was seen not just as a major blockbuster, but as a good and satisfying example of same. Because this film is awfully damn stupid. In budget it may be an A picture, but in its heart this is at home among the cheapest and silliest of B movies. They built extravagant sets and used expensive stunts, but they did so with very poor quality control, leaving the results looking like what you'd see in a far cheaper movie. The wirework suffers particularly: some super-person will give a slow ineffective kick to something, and then after a brief delay, the object or person will drift far across the sky to indicate how hard it was kicked. Optical effects such as heat vision are about as well done as the phaser effects on the more rushed episodes of the original Star Trek. The flying footage doesn't sync up correctly with the background anymore. And it's stupid.
Worse, the story is badly marred by the kind of lame forced comedy that gave Superman III such a bad reputation. And they do things like showing super-people having spoken conversations in the vacuum of space.
The plotting is as contrived as you can get: for no reason at all (unless maybe you decide to believe the Larry Niven hypothesis), Superman is told that if he wants to marry an Earth woman, he has to give up all his powers. Which he does. He's also told that once done, this can never be reversed; but of course it does get reversed, and they never explain how this happens!
And they give Superman and his super-opponents bogus extra powers, such as erasing memories. Hasn't he got enough damn powers already? They add about four new ones. Worse than the Bollywood version.
It does increase the super-action over the first film, as Supes has to fight three evil Kryptonian communists who have the same powers he's got. (Roughly the same, anyway... real consistency is clearly too much to ask.) In other words, it's Godzilla Syndrome: the next movie has to have more monsters. The whole point of this film is the super-battle in the giant downtown set, where the characters throw buses at each other and so forth. Yet despite the extravagance in filming, it's clumsy and unimpressive. And pointless, because none of them can hurt each other.
But, I have to say that Christopher Reeve is still cool. They give him the dorkiest dialogue and situations imaginable and he still keeps you on his side.
John Williams' famous theme music is reprocessed by Ken Thorne, and so far he keeps it in pretty good shape. This will change with the next film. (By the way, it turns out that the theme Williams used in the opening credits is loosely based on that used in the old Fleischer Brothers animated shorts from the early forties.)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Entertaining special-effects masterpiece... joyous sense of wonder...
[the] destruction of downtown Metropolis is brilliant.
SUPERMAN III (1983)The Silly Superman. The Salkinds (father and son producers), having fired director Richard Donner midway through the second film for doing Superman right, insisted that the new movie be made campy. They probably said something like what cartoon producer Leon Schlesinger once told Chuck Jones and his other animators: "Put in lot'tha joketh, fellath, joketh are funny." This fucks up the film rather badly, especially since the level of humorosity in the attempted jokes is generally abysmal, but some positive elements help to partially save the movie. Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of unfunny comedy to suffer through. Those who truly hate unfunny comedy may find this movie harder to sit through than Superman IV. They may ask: why, oh why, did you give this movie just as good a rating as Superman II? Mainly, because #2 was forgettable. This one left far more vivid recollections. And fortunately, most of the worst stuff is concentrated near the beginning. The first third is one painful squirm- in- your- seat- with- embarrassment scene after another, but then the second half gets more super.
Richard Pryor guest-stars as Gus Gorman, the world's stupidest superintelligent computer genius. He makes his character way too clownish, but injects a little freshness into the series nonetheless.
Margot Kidder is written out of the story by a pathetically transparent device... because she went and told the Salkinds how much they suck. See? There is something to like about her.
This film contains some memorable scenes, and some incredibly hokey scenes -- sometimes, the same ones. Like the scene where Superman, turned evil by misformulated kryptonite, super-fights himself in a junkyard, with the "good" Superman being represented by his Clark Kent persona. Call me a dork, but that's my favorite scene in the movie. Reeve's delineation of the various character roles -- nerdy Clark, Superman, and Evil Superman -- is stagey but effective. Nothing can be taken seriously, but the climactic battle, unlike that in Superman II, is actually thrilling -- enough so to keep the movie afloat (barely). And furthermore, it's imaginative -- they throw in one crazy thing after another that you don't expect. The nuttiness, and the sparky smoky effects, would be right at home in a Japanese giant monster movie.
The John Williams theme music is again worked over by Ken Thorne here, and this time he does more poorly than in his previous attempt. Whenever he's not relying on John Williams' theme, he's dull. Still, it's thrilling to hear that opening motif on french horn, at the moment when Good Superman finds his way back...
SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987)I once saw a brief capsule review of this in a weekly alternative newspaper, a summary written to act as a placeholder during the interval before they actually saw and reviewed the film, which said: "Produced by -- oh, shit -- Golan and Globus." That "oh, shit" was right on the money. This formerly prestigious big-budget series has suddenly become cheap garbage, not just in the amateur-grade special effects and stunts but in the amateur-grade dialog and plotting as well. Every scene in the film is, in some greater or lesser way, just plain stupid. Every single scene, without exception!
Gene Hackman didn't even shave his head to play Lex Luthor, or even cover it with a wig. And he says "nucular". Perhaps that's Gene's little joke on the filmmakers. Or did he say it that way in Superman: The Movie? I can't remember. He also said "nucular" in Crimson Tide...
(By the way, did you know that in his early comic book appearances, the mad scientist Luthor, not yet named Lex, wore a green dress over his pants? I think it was supposed to be some kind of archaic lab coat.)
Margot Kidder is back. She looks awful. Maybe this was about the time when she was ready to head for rehab.
Anyway, you know you're in good hands right from the beginning, when Supes saves some Russian cosmonauts whose space station has been hit by an old stray satellite. Not only does the station rumble as it moves by, not only does his cape flap, not only does he take a deep breath in space... but he speaks aloud to a space-suited rescuee right out there in the vacuum, and mentions that he heard him singing! (I guess hearing the guy would explain how he knew the station was in trouble.) If that wasn't bad enough, there's a scene near the end where Mariel Hemingway breathes vacuum with no ill effects, just like Superman. It appears that the writers forgot completely about airlessness up there. It's like nobody ever told them about it -- they are consistent throughout the film in acting as if there's air.
Don't miss Superman's new super power, "bricklayer vision".
This Superman episode isn't silly fluff like the last one... oh no, it's very earnestly concerned about grave issues. To wit, the nuclear arms race. And unlike virtually all other Golan-Globus dreck, it takes an internationalist and anti-military point of view, because Christopher Reeve would only do the film if he controlled the story, and that's the kind of story he wanted. Perhaps the Go-Go Boys felt a bit awkward or out of place doing a liberal-flavored film... and perhaps that helps explain, in some small way, how moronic the result is. Or maybe Reeve just sucks at screenwriting. But I don't think it's Reeve's fault; he didn't write the dialogue, but (as I understand it) just a broad story outline. And in outline, this story doesn't really have anything wrong with it (by comic book standards); it can certainly be taken as seriously as anything in the earlier movies. Still, the core premise that the world's nuclear powers would allow an extraterrestrial to disarm them is ridiculous. But the other parts, such as Lex Luthor creating his own evil superhero in the heat of the sun and having him fight Big Blue, are good plain meat-and-potatoes comic book fare. No, this movie's failure is in the execution.
There is one thrilling battle of titans to witness on screen here. No, I don't mean Superman vs. Solar Power Man -- though ironically, the fight with Lex Luthor's super-stooge is probably as close as they ever got in this series to the style of superfight you'd see in the source comics -- I mean Superman IV vs. Supergirl: which movie is worse? And the winner is... well, it's pretty close, but I think Supergirl retains the title. For the true bad movie fan, either film is a rewarding experience.
This time the theme music is handed off to Alexander Courage, who does it properly. He definitely deserved a bigger share of the ol' wealth and fame than he got.
SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006)Superman has been away from Earth for five years, and when he comes back, he's turned into a soap opera star, and Lex Luthor has turned into Kevin Spacey. Before seeing this, I'd taken to referring to it as "Soaperman"... and sadly, after seeing it the name still sticks. And once again, the attempt to make a DC Comics movie to match the quality of the Marvel films has fallen short.
The soap isn't too dominant. Most of the running time is sufficiently occupied with superness instead of soapiness. But... the superness is mostly nothing very special or impressive. It's generally familiar, expected Superman activities, and most of it shows little imagination or originality, relative to the previous Superman films. In fact, this movie hardly updates the older Superfilms at all; the conflict with Lex Luthor is almost more of a remake of the first film than it is a sequel.
Those hoping for this to be a superhero movie in the modern 21st century style -- the kind of film that began with Bryan Singer's X-Men -- won't get their wish; the style of this film is very retro, harking back to precisely the corny style of the original Superman films. Ironically, the movie was directed by the very same Bryan Singer who finally showed the way beyond the camp-infected comic book movies of the past... You could almost read the old-fashioned style of this opus as a reaction against that modernism. But that might be quite a stretch. It's much more plausible to read it as a marketing move by suits.
They spent a gargantuan amount of money on this film, and not all that much of it shows on the screen. Rumor has it that the many years of "development hell" that the Superman franchise went through before it could be successfully revived was so prolonged and difficult that they ended up spending forty million dollars on discarded work -- none of it, so far as I know, involving the shooting of any actual film -- before they even started on the current version.
The end result, ironically, is that the "soapy" elements are actually the most interesting part of the movie. They're the one part where they give us something genuinely unexpected. (Which I will not reveal the details of, except to say that it follows from a certain event in Superman II.) But the basics can be discussed freely: Lois Lane, who once loved Superman, has moved on. She has married another man -- the nephew of her editor (a plot point suspiciously similar to one used in Spider-Man 2), Richard White, played by James Marsden (Cyclops in X-Men), an actor who gets a lot of crap from fans in both of these roles but who I think does a creditable job.
And on one point I have to give Singer et al a lot of credit: it would have been so easy to write it so that Lois gradually grows dissatisfied with her husband and goes back where she "belongs" -- in love-at-a-distance with the big guy. But they don't. And there are scenes in this movie where Superman may be the savior, but Richard White is the hero. In time, you have to reconcile yourself to realizing that this marriage is not going away.
Unfortunately, soon after this the idea of Superman as "savior" gets taken way too literally, and he gets turned into Jesus-man. This definitely hurts an already dubious film. The attempt they make to get some Christ cool to rub off on the Man of Steel makes the Matrix movies seem covert and subtle in their hints of Jesusification. But, it does fit the corny, old fashioned tone of the piece as a whole. There's no flavor of Iowa corn purer and sweeter than the kind they serve in Church.
So, how are the new actors? Kevin Spacey hams it up grandly as Luthor, to both charming and chilling effect. No complaints there. Kate Bosworth as Lois? I'm sorry, I'm with everyone else in judging her as miscast. And Brandon Routh as Clark Kent / Kal-El? I'm afraid he summed up his qualifications for the role pretty completely when he appeared on Letterman and mentioned that people had been telling him for years that he looked like Christopher Reeve. He can act, I guess, but he just ain't super. (They had to pad his suit! Reeve just said "I can work out" and that settled the padding issue.) He comes off as just a pretty-boy... especially when equipped with an embarrassingly un-manly brylcreemed version of the Superman spit-curl on his forehead. And his soap-honed acting skillz completely fail to do what Reeve, for all his stagey woodenness, succeeded brilliantly at: playing Clark Kent so distinctly from Superman that you could actually believe no one would see through the disguise. Routh, and Singer, take a different approach: one that shows that Superman really is an old-fashioned, parochial farm kid at heart, no matter how much he has had to take on the role of a demigod; that his Clark Kent persona is no act. It's a very reasonable way to treat the character... but given that, how could anyone fail to notice???
In sum, this movie provides some reasonably thrilling super action, some pathos, and some truly interesting and unexpected character arc developments (the kind likely to make many fans slap their scalps and go "wtf?!"), but none of it is done well enough to make a very deep impression, and I'm totally not surprised to learn that the film is failing to grow any box office legs. Indeed, seeing it just five days after release, I was in an emptier theater than I was when seeing X-Men: The Last Stand at an age of five weeks.