Movie Review: Superman

 

Michael's Movie Grade: B+

An excellent superhero movie, despite a few flaws. 

What makes this movie work so well is that it truly captures just what makes superhero comic books so wonderful. The best superhero comics mix elements that are corny and silly with a real sense of heart and some serious themes in a way that seems effortless and natural. That is the kind of feel that this movie goes for, and it works quite well. Many of the story elements are quite over the top and silly. Yet while the film makes jokes, it never becomes one. That is because underneath its often-sillier story elements it has a real sense of heart and takes its themes seriously. This movie understands that one of the most important aspects of Superman as a character and of stories revolving around him is the belief in humanities capacity for good and that regardless of how cynical the times may be there is always a place for basic human kindness. This optimism and felt throughout the film and it truly contagious. It also understands despite being born an alien, Superman was raised as a human and understands the world and feels emotions just like them. While I did feel that Superman's intelligence could fluctuate at times depending on where the story was to go (unfortunately a flaw that finds its way into even the best Superhero movies), other than this movie understands the character and what has made him appeal to so many. David Corenswet is actually quite great in the role, despite having big shoes to fill. Another great asset of this film is that it has the best live action movie version of Lex Luther. Not only is Nicholas Hoult simply wonderful in this role (perfect casting in my opinion), but the writing truly understands the essence of this character. No offense to Gene Hackman but this is the first live action movie Lex Luther that actually feels like the iconic comic book villain, we all love to hate. Great visuals and exciting fight scenes don't hurt this movie either. 

This film is full of the signature James Gunn (who directed and wrote this movie) humor. However, it does not hit as consistently as it did in the Guardians of the Galaxy movies or The Suicide Squad  (2021). There were quite a few moments that made me laugh out loud. However, there were also quite a few that simply feel flat. I also felt that this movie suffered from an excess of characters. Because of this some of the characters ended up feeling quite underdeveloped, especially the Daily Planet staff and unfortunately Ma and Pa Kent. 

This movie may not be perfect but the parts that work are simply fantastic. Because of this I whole heartedly give this a full recommendation.  

Man of Steel (2013)

 

Man of Steel marked the start of what would become known as the DCEU (or DC Extended Universe). This was an attempt by Warner Brothers to create a connected universe for the DC heroes similar to the MCU for Marvel. Yet despite this being the start of a cinematic universe, plans for the movie began during the making of another DC Comics film. That other DC comics film was The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Though Warner Brothers had begun pitching ideas for a new live-action Superman in June 2008, it was during story conferences for that Batman movie that writer David S. Goyer (a writer on that movie) proposed his idea for a Superman movie. Chrisopher Nolan (who directed The Dark Knight Rises) was immediately taken with Goyer's proposed story and personally pitched the idea to Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers was also very impressed and greenlighted the movie. Due to the success of The Dark Knight trilogy and Nolan's interest in the story, Nolan was placed as producer for the new movie and Goyer was made one of the writers.

Finding the director for the movie was not as easy.  Guillermo Del Toro was offered the assignment (I would love to see a Guillermo Del Torro Superman movie) but declined because he was occupied with a film adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness (a movie that would end up being made). Robert Zemeckis also declined an offer to direct. Other directors considered included Ben Affleck (who would later play Batman in the DCEU (he declined the offer because he had never directed a film with so many effects)), Darren Aronofsky (director of Pi (1998), Black Swan (2010), Mother! (2017) and The Whale (2022)) Tony Scott (director of such movies as Top Gun (1986), Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) and Days of Thunder (1990)). Zach Synder (who had previously directed the DC film, Watchmen (2009)) was placed in the director's chair in October 2010. 

British actor Henry Cavill was cast as Superman. This however was not the first time he tried for this role. He had auditioned for the role of Superman in the early stages of Superman Returns (2006) but was denied the role. About receiving this role the actor would state, "It felt pretty incredible, actually. I’m not going to lie. You put it on, and you think okay, this is day one of work — day one of being Superman, and you’ve got a whole crew here who are invested in making a Superman movie. I was all wrapped up in this very sticky waterproof black cape thing, so no paparazzi could get shots or anything like that. And it was roasting hot, it was over 100 degrees in Chicago. And it’s that moment of going, 'This is me, unveiling myself as Superman to the crew.' And there was a slight aspect of nerves, but it was more about excitement. People weren’t waiting to judge — everyone is sitting there rubbing their hands together with glee, going, 'We finally get to see what we’re creating here!' It was an incredible feeling, wearing the suit, after all the work I’d done and everyone else had done in putting the suit together. It just felt like the right moment. It felt bang on. Really exciting." Cavill has a naturally hairy chest and personally decided he wanted to keep the hair for this film. Being a comics nerd himself, he pointed out that Superman had chest hair in The Death of Superman storyline. Still, he stated the hardest scenes for him where the one's where he appeared shirtless. He refused to either take performance-enhancing drugs or having the special effects team touch him up, meaning he had to look muscular enough for people to believe him as Superman without any aid for these scenes. 

This movie retells the origin story of Superman. This is the story of how he came to Earth, was raised by the Kents and how he learned to control his powers. He feels he must hide his powers because people might fear him and therefore keeps a low profile. However, when the evil General Zid arrives on Earth and wants to destroy humanity, he must use these powers to protect the world he calls home. 

Despite its flaws, Man of Steel was a pretty strong start to the DCEU. There is a lot that I personally really like about this movie. I love its depiction of the planet Krypton. Instead of just making it feel like a futuristic Earth (in the vein of The Jetsons), the filmmakers really made Krypton feel like a completely different world. The filmmakers also try to make Earth feel more realistic and less fantastical than in previous Superman movies. This makes the contrast between Krypton and Earth very effective. I also loved the way that this movie handled the scenes where a young Clark Kent discovers his powers. This movie delves into how he cannot yet understand or control his powers. Honestly, as much as any of us would like to be Superman the discovery of these powers would be terrifying. This film makes us feel these moments of fear and panic placing us into the shoes of young Clark Kent. This movie also benefits from some great special effects and very exciting action sequences. General Zod may not be a complex character but honestly that has always been part of his charm. His is simply evil and with the same powers as Superman, he is a great threat. He fills this job very well here. 

The casting in this movie is near perfect. Henry Cavill is a wonderful Superman. Not only does he perfectly look the part, but he definitely has the acting chops to pull it off. While Amy Adams may not be as memorable as Lois Lane as Noel Neill or Margert Kidder, she does quite a good job as a determined young reporter. Russell Crowe is very good as Jor-El (Superman's birth father) commanding the screen whenever he is on. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are very charismatic as Ma and Pa Kent. Michael Shannon is believable threatening and evil as General Zod. 

This movie definitely does have its flaws though. The largest of these flaws is the depiction of Pa Kent. Despite a great performance by Kevin Costner, the way this character is written feels off. It is one thing to think his son should keep his powers a secret, but he takes it to too large of an extreme. Once when young Clark asks "What was I supposed to do? Just let them die," Pa has the nerve to respond, "Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark." I'm sorry but saying that he did wrong by saving innocent kids from drowning because people might be scared is ludicrous. This is a horrible lesson to teach young Clark and that makes this feel like a compete character assassination. This is a character that is supposed to feel like a moral guide to our hero and to have him state something so morally wrong hurts the movie. I also felt that there was no romantic chemistry between Superman and Lois Lane. When we see them kissing in one scene, it seems to come out of nowhere.

 However, while these flaws really hurt the movie, what is done well is excellent. So even with some major flaws, I still love this film. 

The movie was a box office success. It became the fourth highest grossing movie of 2013 (the top three were Iron Man 3 (2013), The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) and Despicable Me 2 (2013)). Critics were split on this film. Some felt that it was an exciting and intelligent take on the classic superhero. Others felt that this movie was long on spectacle and low on story and characterization. Roger Ebert (who included Superman: The Movie (1978) in his famous list of Great Movies) gave the film three out of four stories, feeling that it started off very strong but lost momentum along the way. Audiences remain just as split on this movie. Some feel it is one of the best Superman movies, while others feel this is a betrayal of everything Superman stands for. 

Resources Used

Warner Bros. 100 Years of Storytelling by Mark A. Vieira

https://entertainmentnow.com/news/the-man-of-steel-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know-superman-2013-movie/

https://screenrant.com/man-of-steel-interesting-behind-scenes-details/

Superman Returns (2006)

 

This movie was a long time coming. Warner Brothers had bought back the film rights for Superman from Alex Salkind in 1993. However, at this time, Warner Brothers had no storyline for another Superman film. The first Superman story thrown around began with our hero dying after getting Lous pregnant followed by Lois giving birth to a baby that is even more powerful than Superman. In fact, the baby was so powerful that it grew to adulthood in weeks. Warner Brothers wisely gave up this idea. The scripts that followed differed greatly from one another. Story ideas ranged from Superman trading his familiar costume for an all-black one to him building a robot named L-Ron to him fighting Batman and Brainiac to the resurrection of his birth planet to a movie that directly talked about 9/11. Titles for these scripts included Superman Reborn, Superman: Flyboy, Batman Vs. Superman (thank God nobody ever made a dumb movie like that), Superman V and Superman Lives. 

In 2004, Warner Brothers hired Bryan Singer to direct his own idea for a story (Bryan Singer would co-write this film with Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris). This resulted in the film we know today as Superman Returns. Singer was the perfect choice for a director. He had already shown that he knew how to handle a Superhero film having already directed two X-Men movies. He is not only a massive fan of Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman 2 (1980) but he knew Richard Donner (who directed Superman: The Movie and began directing Superman 2 before that film would be taken over by Richard Lester). He personally talked to Donner about his various ideas for this film. The result was a movie that would be very much a spiritual successor to the two Superman movies that Donner worked on. 

The storyline of this movie involves Superman returning to Earth after having been in space for five years (after some astronomers believed they found the remains of Krypton). After returning, he finds that much has changed. For instance, Lois Lane has settled down and has a kid. She also won the Pulitzer Prize for writing an article entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." However not everything has changed as Lex Luther has another evil plan. 

This is one of the most underrated superhero films and just simply a delightful movie. Pretty much everything about this movie works. The casting is fantastic. Though he may never get the attention given to George Reeves, Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill, Brandon Routh is a truly wonderful Superman. Fitting for this film, he feels almost like a spiritual successor to Christopher Reeve. Yet he never copies or tries too hard to be Reeve, he just simply has the same type of charisma and charm about him. Like Reeve, we don't feel like we are watching an actor but feel as if we are watching the comic book character come to life. Kate Bosworth is quite good as Lois Lane offering the type of tough girl with a good heart feel to this character that makes her comic book counterpart so popular. However, the real scene stealer is Kevin Spacey. Spacey is the best live action Lex Luthor, making the character a lot of fun to watch, while also feeling completely evil and threatening. The wonderful dialogue this character is given also helps a lot. A supporting cast that includes Frank Langella and the legendary Eva Marie Saint doesn't hurt either. What also makes this movie work so well is that the focus is not on the action or super-heroics. Instead, this is a film that is mostly about the characters. This film puts us in Superman's shoes as he returns home after five years. The filmmakers take their time telling this story rather than rushing from one action scene to the next. Because of this we feel like we really get to know and understand these characters. Clark seeing that the love of his life has moved on and coming to terms with this allows for some very emotion moments that stay with you. In fact, this past romance remains the true heart of this film. The relationship here would also give this movie an emotional maturity that was missing from the last two childish live action Superman films. This movie's look at if the world really needs a Superman is very intelligently written and surprisingly thought provoking. Without once mentioning the tragedy this helps bring Superman into a post 9/11 America and makes us wonder if we can still find the same childlike faith today as when people first believed a man could fly. It also makes us wonder if in this more cynical world such a character like Superman could still matter to people. If I had one complaint it would be that the climatic action sequence goes on too long and loses momentum part-way through. Still, this is a small complaint in what is otherwise an excellent movie.   

Brandon Routh was very honored for the chance to play the man of steel. He remembered how excited he got his first time seeing Superman: The Movie, "I gave myself a migraine. I was puking through half of the movie." When he was given the role Chrisopher Reeve's widow told him that she was amazed by the resemblance and gave Routh her blessing. Routh would later say, "I can't tell you what it was like to get her blessing. It's frightening trying to fill Christopher Reeve's shoes." 

The casting in this movie paid tribute to older eras of Superman's rich history. Noel Neill, who played Lois Lane on the classic 1950's TV show, The Adventures of Superman, played Lex's dying wife. Jack Larson, who played Jimmy Olson on the 50's TV show, had a cameo as Bo the bartender. They were both delighted to be in this film though Neill would state, Our George will always be Superman to us." 

Co-writer Michael Doughtery had a passion for this character and this story. He stated, "Writing a story like this is almost biblical, when you hear how the Bible was passed down orally year to year. The Superman character has been passed from one person to the next and one generation to the next. My grandmother still loves more than anything the black and white George Reeves show. For Bryan and I and Dan it was the Donner films, and today's teenagers gravitate towards Smallville, which I can appreciate simply because I love the character. There's a Superman for every generation." 

Things didn't start out well from composer John Ottman. Ottman remembered this experience stating, "I was practically getting death threats from fans of the Donner version. They worried I wouldn't do the right thing with the music and asked why John Williams wasn't writing the scores the way he had for Donner. I started getting crippled, worrying what fans were thinking. Finally I said to myself that I have to ignore all that and weave in my own sensibilities and style, and of course nod to the Williams theme, which I'd always intended to. The fan reaction was that if they could have sent me flowers they would have. They were all very happy." 

This film was not without its controversy. With director Bryan Singer being openly homosexual and having put homosexual themes into his previous movies, many felt that he might make Superman gay (with no further proof to back this statement). This made Singer feel the need to public say that this was "the most heterosexual movie I've ever made." After the movie came out there was controversy over a line where Perry White says, "... does he still stand for truth, justice, all that stuff?" Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly responded, "Warner Brothers, the studio distributing the movie, doesn't want to tee off any foreign viewers with Pro-U.S. sentiments. It's bad enough Superman was raised in the Midwest; we can't be having the hero actually standing for the American way now, can we? Some jihadist in Pakistan might throw popcorn at the screen." A more liberal commentor Erik Lundegaard responded in a commentary for The New York Times, "There's no reason to be upset. Superman is right back where he began: fighting a never-ending battle for truth and justice. That should be enough to occupy any man. Even a Superman." 

Critical reception to this film was mixed with some believing it to a great addition to the man of steel's already rich history and some feeling that it tried too hard to feel like Donner's films as to have no identity of its own. The movie did well at the box office but at the same time did not reach the level of financial success that of the recent Spider-man and X-Men movies. Former Warner Brothers president Alan Horn stated that Superman Returns "was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide. We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd." Unfortunately, this was not enough to allow Singer and Routh to continue making films with the caped superhero as they planned to do and when the next live action Superman film came out neither of them would be involved. Both would however have fond memories of making this movie and would remain proud of the result. 

Resources Used

Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero by Larry Tye. 

https://collider.com/superman-returns-review-2016/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_2_cdt_t_10
 

Superman IV: Quest for Peace (1987)

 

For many Superman IV was the death kneel of Superman as a film franchise. Not only was it a commercial and critical disappointment but it is still considered to be the worst superman movie to date. Because of this film's failure, there would not be another theatrically released Superman movie until Superman Returns (2006). 

In this film, a little boy writes Superman asking him if he can get rid of all nuclear weapons. At first, he is hesitant about this because he vowed not to interfere with the world's politics. He eventually decides that the world is in so much danger that he should make an exception. Meanwhile Lex Luthor intends to create a creature as powerful as Superman that will obey him by stealing a strand of Superman's hair. 

There is no way around it, this is a bad movie. While Superman III (1983) was a very flawed movie, it had its good points as well. This film has nothing to recommend about it. Its messaging is done with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It also presents it in such an overly simplistic way, that it is hard to take anything that this movie is saying seriously. In its messaging this movie comes off as more of a cheap afterschool special than an actual theatrical superhero movie. The film also is very weak on the villain front. Lex Luthor is presented in a very comedic fashion here. However not only does this make him not feel as much of a serious threat as in the previous films but the humor itself is not even close to funny. This movie also introduces his nephew, who is the most annoying character to ever appear in a superhero film. This character tries too hard to be a hip 80's teenager and fails miserably at it. The character is also played by Jon Cryer with what is easily the worst performance of his career. Nuclear Man (the creature Lex creates from Superman's hair) is incredibly bland and has such a silly look (that is much too overly 80's) that it hard to take him seriously. This film has the worst special effects of any Superman movie. The special effects definitely received a downgrade from the previous films, and I am no longer sure I believe a man can fly. These special effects make it hard to enjoy any of the action scenes at all. The subplot about a tycoon gaining ownership of Daily Planet is extremely cliché and predictable. Even the return of Christopher Reeve (Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Marget Kidder (Lois Lane) and Jackie Cooper (Perry White) can’t help this film. 

In 1985 at the Cannes Film Festival the producers of the last three Superman movies (Alexander and Ilya Salkind) sold the movie rights to Superman to Cannon Films for $5 million. Cannon Films was known for producing such movies as The Last American Virgin (1982), Ninja III: The Domination (1984), and Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984). Chrisopher Reeve was by this time tired of the role of Superman. However, Cannon Films was able to get him by promising that he could also make his passion project Street Smart (1987), which he hoped would prove that he was a classically trained actor capable of playing more than one role. Reeve was also given approval over the script and director. A script by Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal (the team that had written The Legend of Billie Jean (1985) and The Jewel of the Nile (1985)) was written but the film still needed a director. Reeve originally wanted Ron Howard as the director but that didn't work out. Reeve even briefly thought about directing the film himself, despite having no directorial experience. Richard Donner (director of Superman the Movie (1978)) was even briefly approached but he turned it down. Wes Craven (who had recently directed Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)) was briefly assigned to direct but left due to creative differences with Reeve. Eventually Candian director Sidney J. Furie (Lady Sings the Blues (1972), Iron Eagle (1986)) was given the director's chair. 

Reeve would later state that the production of this film was “hampered by budget constraints and cutbacks in all departments. Cannon Films had nearly thirty projects in the works at the time, and Superman IV received no special consideration.” Nearly everyone working on the film noticed that they were not given the resources necessary to make this movie even look halfway decent. Though the film was approved at a $36 million budget over the course of production it was trimmed to $17 million. Even Jon Cryer who was fairly new to the movie industry noticed that the studio was not giving this movie the care and attention it should have had. Cryer stated “I just noticed little things, like the craft-service table got more and more meager. And they took less and less time every day. We would get props that were especially, uh, crappy.” Reeve would even tell Cryer in private “It’s an absolute mess.”

This movie originally ran at 134 minutes but after a disastrous test screening, it was trimmed down to only 90 minutes. This left gapping plot holes in this already extremely flawed movie. The film only grossed $15 million in its total domestic run. The film helped bring Cannon Films to financial ruin and hurt Reeve's career and the public opinion of superhero movies. Luckily for superhero fans a couple years later Tim Burton's Batman (1989) would help redeem the public opinion on these films. Chistopher Reeve would later state about Superman IV, “Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career.” 

This still stands as one of the worst superhero movies ever made. Even with many superhero movies planned for the coming years, I doubt that will change anytime soon. 

Resources Used

https://www.joblo.com/what-happened-to-superman-iv-the-quest-for-peace/

https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/superman-iv-the-quest-for-peace

Superman III (1983)

 

After the success of Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman 2 (1980), Superman III was an inevitability. However with the first film's director, Richard Donner, having no role in the making of this movie, director Richard Lester gives this third film a completely different feel from the previous movies. This film has a much more comedic and silly tone rather than the more fantasy focused last two films. 

In this movie, Superman (Christopher Reeve) must stop the evil businessman Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) from taking over the world's oil supply. To do this Webster recruits a bumbling computer genius (Richard Pryor) to help him. Things are complicated when a synthesized attempt at creating kryptonite causes Superman to turn evil. While all this is happening as Clark Kent, our hero is rekindling his romance with his high school sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole).       

As a fan of both Superman and slapstick comedy, I should love this movie. However, I will be the first to admit that this film doesn't quite work. The comedy and the superhero adventure don't mesh very well. The charm of the first two films is that they fully immerse you in the world of the movies. In this third entry, the comedy can stretch past the realm of believability. How Richard Pryor's character is automatically a computer genius as soon as he steps behind a computer and the various over the top comedic things he is somehow able to do with the computers, are the type of humor that could work in a Three Stooges, Marx Brothers or Mel Brooks style of comedy. In a Superman movie though, they simply make you stop believing the characters and story. It doesn't help that the comedy can be very hit and miss. There are some truly funny moments here like the scene where Gus (Richard Pryor's character) uses booze to get a security guard to pass out and a couple of pretty good one-liners here and there. However, when it comes to the actual slapstick, it is never that funny. The slapstick gags feel forced instead of naturally flowing from the story and characters (as is the case in the best slapstick comedies). The timing and delivery on these gags feel a bit off and makes them go by without even a chuckle from someone who loves this type of comedy (i.e. me). 

On the superhero adventure side, this film suffers from a weak villain. For some reason instead of using a villain from the comics this movie decides to create a new villain. Unfortunately, this villain does little to stand out from Lex Luthor in the pervious movies. In fact, this villain is in many ways simply a blander and less intimidating version of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. The idea of an evil Superman is fun but the filmmakers don't do enough with it. I will admit that I enjoyed the Superman vs. Superman fight, even if it didn't make any sense. The closest thing this movie has to a saving grace is the Clark and Lana romance. Christopher Reeve and Annette O'Toole have wonderful chemistry, and these scenes bring a little bit of the old-fashioned charm that made the previous movies so great. 

This was originally going to be a very different film. The original storyline was also going to be over the top and silly but in a different way. The original storyline was going to be more in tune with the classic silver age comics than be a slapstick comedy. Producer Ilya Salkind wrote a script in 1980 that would mark the big screen debut of such comics characters as Brainiac, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Supergirl. Though this movie would have been a tribute to the silver age comics, it would have also changed a lot about these characters. Supergirl would have been a love interest for Superman instead of his cousin. Brainiac would have been almost an overprotective father-figure for Supergirl, who disapproved of the romance with Superman. Mr. Mxyzptlk would have a first been a secondary villain but would have eventually helped Superman save the day. Superman would have still turned evil but this would have been from a machine Brainiac created rather than a synthetic attempt at kryptonite. The film would have ended with Brainiac and Superman fighting without powers and as old-fashioned knights, followed by Superman winning and marrying Supergirl. This storyline doesn't sound good at all but with the actual movie's villain problem using Brainiac and Mr. Mxyzptlk (though Mr. Mxyzptlk would have been hard to do with 1980's special effects) wouldn't have been a bad idea. The reason this film was never made was that Warner Brothers decided it wanted to go the safer route with the third film and also wanted to up the comedy. Director Richard Lester also favored this safer and more comedic approach. Husband and wife writing team, David and Leslie Newman (who had worked on the previous films) would create the script for the movie we have today. 

The movie grossed $80.2 million worldwide and was the 12th highest grossing film of 1983 in North America. However, it was a disappointment after the major financial success of the previous films. This movie was also a critical failure. Leonard Maltin called it, "appalling sequel that trashed everything that Superman was about for the sake of cheap laughs and a co-starring role for Richard Pryor." Roger Ebert (who included the first film in his Great Movies books) stated, “'Superman III' is the kind of movie I feared the original “Superman” would be. It’s a cinematic comic book, shallow, silly, filled with stunts and action, without much human interest. What’s amazing is that the first two Superman movies avoided that description, creating a fantasy with a certain charm. They could have been manipulative special-effects movies, but they were a great deal more. With this third one, maybe they’ve finally run out of inspiration."

-Michael J. Ruhland

Resources Used

https://screenrant.com/superman-3-original-plan-story-not-happen-reason/

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/superman-iii-1983

Superman 2 (1980)

 

It is hard for a sequel to follow such a masterpiece as Superman The Movie (1978). This sequel does a remarkable job of following that classic. 

This movie picks up exactly where the last film left off. The three Kryptonian criminals that were banished at the start of the last movie, escape and find themselves on Earth with the same powers as Superman. They soon set their eyes on conquering Earth. At the same time, Lois Lane finds out that Superman and Clark Kent are the same person. As the two fall in love, Clark thinks about giving up his powers so that they could be together. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor escapes from prison and plans his revenge against Superman. 

Though this sequel lacks the sheer awe and wonder of the first film, it succeeds very well in other areas. The three Kryptonian villains are wonderful. Not only do they provide Superman with a truly believable threat, but they also work very well as characters. Each has their own individual personality. While these personalities may not be complex, they help them stand out from each other and not just feel like evil copies of Superman. Great performances from Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran give these characters a larger than life feel. Having three villains with the powers of Superman helps give this movie a real sense of suspense. Though the special effects may be dated, this gives the two big action scenes a real sense of excitement. This movie also creates a strong emotional connection with its audience. Out of all the live action Superman movies, this film does the best job at conveying the romance between Clark and Lois. The relationship between the two feels very touching and believable. There are some very lovely moments between the two and a scene towards the end is very moving. That he is willing to make such a big sacrifice for her makes this romance all the more lovely and touching. The film also benefits from a great sense of humor and a charm that comes from it embracing its comic origins. 

With the troubled production of this film, it is truly amazing that it works as well as it does. Producers Alex and Ilya Salkind knew with the success of the first movie that they wanted to make multiple sequels. In fact, this first sequel was planned while the first movie was already being made. Parts of this film were even being filmed alongside the first. However, how much was shot this way, has been very much debated. There was also already much of a script written by Mario Puzo, David Newman and Leslie Newman, who had written the script for the first movie. Richard Donner, the director of the first film, began directing the filming for this sequel. However he would be replaced by Richard Lester, best known at this time for directing the Beatles films, A Hard Day's Night (1964) and Help (1965) as well as The Three Musketeers (1973). About this change Richard Donner stated, "My feeling at the time was that if the first picture had been a failure, the Salkinds would have demanded that I come back for the second. Since it was a success, they felt they could make the second one without me. One day I got a telegram from them saying that my services were no longer needed and that my dear close friend Richard Lester would take over." Ilya Salkind remembered it differently stating, "Dick Donner said, 'I will do the second movie on my own terms and without [Pierre] Spengler [another producer].' Spengler was my friend since childhood and my father and I were very loyal guys. We said no, and it really boiled down to that." Superman actor Christopher Reeve stated, "The mind boggles at the prospect of doing it with someone else, because Dick was so marvelous to work with." Lois Lane actress Margot Kidder was much blunter and to the point. Not only did she speak out against this change, but she would even tell People magazine that "if I think someone is an amoral asshole I say so." Not surprisingly her character would receive much less screentime in the third film. Lester had been brought in towards the end of production on the first film at first believing that he was there to act as an intermediary between Richard Donner and the producers but eventually learning what the true purpose was. 

One actor who did not return for this sequel was Marlon Brando as Jor-El. He had wanted more money than the studio was willing to pay him and the scenes that were to involve him were reshot with Susannah York as Superman's mother instead. 

The movie was a massive box office success. It broke box office records with an opening day gross of $4.3 million. The next day it grossed $5.5 million, the highest single day for a movie at the box office at that time. The film also received the highest grossing weekend up to this time with $14.1 million. The critics were split on this film. Some felt that it had surpassed the original while others felt that it couldn't live up to the original's magic. 

Resources Used

Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero by Larry Tye. 

Superman the Movie (1978)

 

Superman the Movie is one of the most important movies in the history of superhero cinema. This is the movie that graduated superhero films from cheap B movies and movie serials to high budget blockbusters. Yet its historical importance is not the only reason this is essential viewing for any superhero fan. Even with the incredible wealth of superhero movies that followed (and are still being made today), this still stands as the greatest superhero movie ever made. This is the golden pinnacle amongst which all superhero films must be weighed. 

This movie recounts Superman's origin story from the destruction of the planet Krypton to him arriving on Earth to him growing up as Clark Kent in Smallville to him moving to Metropolis to him taking on his first real supervillain. 

Many superhero films are fun, exciting and even emotional. Yet none of them quite capture the sheer awe and wonder felt throughout Superman the Movie. This is as much of an old school epic as it is a superhero adventure. As much as I love the MCU and the DC films that followed, none of them have the same feel as this movie. Perhaps something about these superhero stories has been lost and watching this movie it is hard not to view that as a shame. Scenes like the opening on Krypton, the Kents discovering the baby by the side of the road, the introduction of the fortress of solitude and Superman flying Lois Lane through Metropolis are scenes that stay in your mind well after the film ends. This is not only done through great visuals that still look fantastic today but through the way they are presented as well. This movie treats these fantastical scenes with the upmost sincerity and a sense of childlike wonder. Because of this watching this film makes one feel like a child again. A child that is eagerly awaiting to go to the comic book story to see Superman's latest adventure, going to the movie theatre every week to see the new Superman movie serial, getting up early on Saturday morning to see new cartoons or discovering the true magic of movies for the first time. Yet this movie is not simply style over substance. The storyline is a lot of fun and even at times quite emotional. The story is in many ways a simple old fashioned superhero adventure and there is nothing wrong with that. The simplicity of the basic story adds to how this film truly makes you feel like a child while watching it. There is still something that is so satisfying about watching Superman save the day and help people out. Little scenes like Superman catching a falling Lois Lane, saving an airplane full of people and helping a little girl get her cat out of a tree add so much to this movie that would not be there if the entire film focused on his fight with Lex Luthor. The movie is also full of delightful action scenes that are still a lot of fun and a delightful sense of humor. As well as the fun and wonder here, this movie also has some very emotional moments. The greatest of these emotional moments comes before we even see Superman in costume. This is when Clark stands over Pa Kent's grave stating that even with all his powers he couldn't save him. This scene still hits me right in the gut every time I watch.   

Of course, one of the main ingredients that makes this film work is Chistopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman. He becomes this character and when you look at the screen, it is like Superman just stepped out of the comic book and into the real world. For a movie that is supposed to feel larger than life this is incredibly important. We forget that we are watching an actor, and we believe that Superman is as real as we are. Part of the reason his performance makes the character feel so real is that in a way Reeve believed in Superman. In his memoir Nothing is Impossible, he wrote, "To say that I believed in Superman is quite an understatement. Of course, I knew it was only a movie, but it seemed to me that the values embodied by Superman on the screen should be the values that prevail in the real world. I've seen first-hand how Superman actually transforms people's lives. I have seen children dying of brain tumors who wanted as their last request to be able to talk to me and have gone to their graves with a peace brought on by knowing that their belief in this kind of character is intact. They're connecting with something very basic: the ability to overcome obstacles, the ability to persevere, the ability to understand difficulty and to turn your back on it." He took the role seriously from the start. He not only went through intense bodybuilding, but he also tried to get into the mind of the character. He would later write, "Truth and justice seemed relatively easy to understand but what about 'the American way?' What does that mean? Is the American way different from the way of other countries that uphold democracy and human rights? After considerable thought and discussion with friends, I decided that because the character is a hero for the entire world, nationalism was not an issue. I thought about other aspects of the American way and the basic rights of pluralistic societies: equal opportunity, equal rights, tolerance, free speech, and fair play." When it came to his secret identity Clark Kent, Reeve based his performance off of Cary Grant in the classic screwball comedy, Bringing Up Baby (1938). It is no wonder that Reeve became the ultimate depiction of Superman for a generation. However, Reeve was not the first considered for the role. The studio (Warner Brothers) wanted a bigger star in the role like Robert Redford in the role. However, director Richard Donner would state that he, "had to convince the audience that the man who was playing that role could fly. And I could not believe Redford or Newman in blue leotards and a red cape, flying." Yet he felt that newcomer Christopher Reeve would be completely believable. About Reeve Donner would state. "I didn't find him. God sent him to me." 

The movie also benefits from a really strong supporting cast including Marlon Brando as Jor-El, Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, Glenn Ford as Pa Kent, Phillis Thaxter as Ma Kent, Marc McClure as Jimmy Olson, Jackie Cooper (who had been one of the Our Gang (or Little Rascals) kids in the 1920's and 30's) as Perry White and the beautiful Valerie Perrine as Lex Luthor's sexy girlfriend Eve Teschmacher. Marlon Brando received top billing and was the highest paid. For doing this film he received $3.7 million for only 12 days' work and 10 minutes of screen time. Marlon Brando showed none of the passion for the project that Reeve had. He refused to memorize his lines and, in the scene, where he is placing the baby in the escape pod, he is actually reading the lines off the baby's diaper. Lois Lane's parents are played by Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill, who had played Superman and Lois in the 1940's movie serials. Jeff East, who played the young Clark Kent was Glenn Ford's son in real life. 

Director Richard Donner took this film just as seriously as Reeve did. While making the film he would say, "The minute you lose the truth or make fun of it or begin to parody it, you destroy the line of tension, the honesty." Donner would express great disappointment in the first draft of the script stating that it "was like 400 pages. It was ridiculous. They had Superman flying down looking for Lex Luthor, but he stops Telly Savalas on the street, who says, 'Who loves ya baby.' It was just sickening. It had no approach, no sense of its own verisimilitude - its own life in the reality of what Krypton was, what Smallville was, what the transition to Metropolis was going to be." It is Donner's pure passion that would make this movie so special. Donner would even state, "I was making it for me. . .. This picture is the biggest Erector Set given to the biggest kid in the world." 

John Williams score is also fantastic for this movie. There is hardly a movie fan that doesn't recognize his Superman Theme. Williams would state, "Superman was the perfect hero to be musicalized in quasi-operatic or balletic fashion." He would also state, "My challenge and opportunity was to capture musically Superman's optimism and invincibility and athletics and heroism. The perfect fifth and the perfect octave are heroic intervals that have a strength and a core power to suggest just those qualities of heroism and heroics."     

The movie was a massive hit, setting off records at the box office. With this it would naturally spawn multiple sequels. The movie was also praised by critics with Roger Ebert calling it, "a wonderous combination of all the old-fashioned things we never really get tired of adventure and romance, heroes and villains, earthshattering special effects, and you know what else? Wit." Ebert would later include this in his famous list of great movies.    

Resources Used

https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/91973/superman-the-movie#articles-reviews?articleId=66930

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078346/

Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero by Larry Tye. 

Superman and the Mole-Men (1951)

 

Superman and the Mole-Men marked the very first feature length Superman movie (it was also the first feature film based on a DC Comics character and possibly the first feature length superhero movie ever). However, it was not the first time the superhero was seen on movie screens. He appeared in a series of animated cartoons produced by Max Fleisher (best known for the Popeye and Betty Boop cartoons) and in two movie serials (one in 1948 and another in 1950). For this movie it is planned to have Kirk Alyn (who played the character in the serials) to return to the role here. However, he wanted too much money and George Reeves was hired to play the character instead. This of course gives the film a greater historical importance to Superman fans, as George Reeves would play the character on the beloved TV show Adventures of Superman, and many consider him to be the definitive Superman. This feature film was actually a trial for the TV series and would later be edited into a two-part episode of the series called The Unknown People. As well as having George Reeves as Superman the film also featured Phyllis Coates as Lois Lane. She would also play this character the TV series. 

This movie was a quickly made cheap budgeted film that was shot in only 12 days and ran only 58 minutes. 

In this film a group of oil men dig into the center of the earth, which causes some strange looking mole-men to enter the surface world. When most people see these mole-men they get very scared and even try to harm the creatures. Because of this they feel that they must defend themselves from the surface world. However, since reporter Clark Kent is on town working on a story, he (and his alter ego Superman) does all he can to protect these misunderstood creatures.

This movie could not differ more from the superhero films of today. Not only was it made quickly and cheaply but it is a slower paced film, whose focus was not on super-heroics. In fact, we saw much more of our hero as Clark Kent than as Superman. This movie has much more in common with the sci-fi films of the 1950's than the superhero movies today. However, as 50's B-movies go this one was above average. There is a lot to love here. Of course, the acting is top notch. George Reeves is perfect as Superman/Clark Kent, even in his first appearance as the character. He completely disappears into the role, and he becomes the character from the comic books. For anyone who has read the Superman comics of the 1940's and 50's, this is that version of Superman come to life. Yet even the supporting players are truly excellent in their roles. This movie also boosts a surprisingly intelligent script that offers commentary on such issues as racism, gun control and oil drilling. Yet it handles these subjects in a way that feels clever and smart without ever feeling preachy. The way this movie blends this serious commentary with good old fashioned sci-fi fun is surprisingly very good. At times this even feels like it could have been an episode of The Twilight Zone. Though there aren't a lot of action sequences here, the ones that are here are pretty good. The scene with the mole-man running away from the hunting dogs was quite exciting and still holds a good sense of suspense to this day. 

However, this film's low-budget and quick shooting schedule are quite obvious. The effects don't only look dated today, but they weren't even good for 1951. The special effects and the costumes can be off-putting and can take you out of the movie at times. Though they are well acted most of the supporting characters are rather bland and one-note. 

However, even with its flaws this was a solid start to Superman's career in feature length movies and possibly even a strong start to feature length superhero movies as a whole.