Ever since “Batman v Superman” and “Suicide Squad,” I wondered when DC Comics would finally get their act together and make a fun comic book movie. The only two I recall that worked so well was a bulk of “Superman II” and Burton’s “Batman.” Finally, with a breath of air, I can claim “Wonder Woman” as my favorite DC Comics movie to date. It’s fun, action-packed and does what has been missing the whole time. A bright colorful superhero flick that isn’t afraid to try things.
Gal Gadot plays the Amazonian warrior Diana who is tough but has a human soul. The movie starts off introducing her character in probably the smartest way. We learn who she is and what she wants to gain over the course of the plot. Diana maybe trying to understand the nature of her people, but she wants to know what lies beyond her island home to see if humanity is more forgiving then what her people think. There is no big quest to save her world or big urge for a love interest like Disney’s “Little Mermaid.” The aspect of World War I plays a big factor into her character as she questions if human beings should be saved or left to their own devices.
Helping her out is US spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) who helps Diana understand the world outside her own is not all pleasant. His character works well as the straight man as Steve keeps her curiosity at balance while letting her understand the human element is more complex. There is a love interest hint but thankfully downplayed to let the two work off each other. Pine and Gadot have a fun chemistry that really works in scenes when Steve is trying to have the Amazonian learn about the treatment of women and government law.
On the opposite side, a German general (Danny Huston) plays a red herring in all this as he works with the diabolical Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya) to create a deadly gas bomb. Most of the movie focuses these two are trying to craft the ultimate killing device with much menace. Unfortunately, I found myself more interested in the Poison character. She has a disfigured face which feels like a tribute to William Castle’s “Mr Sardonicus” and seeks to ensure they have the upper hand. While they don’t build her up to the “big evil one,” I felt there was something memorable about her performance and look. In contrast to the iron-fisted general who is just there to win the war.
There is much action to behold as “Wonder Woman” leaps from one colorful action scene to another. Something missing in recent DC adaptions was the value of fun and there is much to enjoy. One of my favorite moments was seeing Diana dash into No Man’s Land and go up against an air full of bullets. There is something awe-inspiring yet enjoyable with the usage of music and energetic visuals.
Even the side characters are a lot of fun too. At Steve’s side is a ragtag of secret agents and sharpshooters who provide plenty of comic relief. But when they are not cracking jokes, there is a sense of vulnerability to these characters that help Diana’s understanding of the human race. One such example is a Scotsman who post-traumatic stress disorder who can be a good shot but also has a heart. While they are aware of how hard the war is, they try to keep optimistic in the best way possible.
And for a movie like this to take on a heavy subject as war, it knows how much to focus on the darker details. Images of injured soldiers, families without homes and dead bodies after a launched gas bomb could have weighed in on the fun factor, but it works. Diana understands the human race is a complex bunch that fight each other, but never feel spite against one another. In a lesson never learned from Superman, you can win on some days but lose sometimes as well. This is an element I see Fieg’s “Ghostbusters” tried but I feel it works better because the main character is trying to know how the world works.
I am close to say “Wonder Woman” is a perfect movie, but there is one tiny flaw that can either make or break the movie. Throughout the story, Diana believes this was is the doing of a god and seeks to end it by killing him. It leads to an interesting concept about belief. Diana is stuck to her mythological history while Steve believes things are a cause of human nature. There comes a moment when it starts to pay off, but unfortunately a twist villain confirms the true nature.
For a moment, I thought it was going in a very smart and very clever direction, but then it felt like we were not ready for something unique and different. The final 20 minutes resort to a final showdown between Wonder Woman and the true antagonist behind the whole thing. Why couldn’t they just do something more brilliant like have Diana’s mother appear in her mind and try to remind her of her warnings or something less cliche. Instead, they play it safe and even if the climatic fight scene is explosive, I just wish it a much stronger element than a twist villain.
But, I can’t rampage on this latest entry. DC Comics and Warner Bros are trying to make a good adaption here and I can see it. They were so close and yet so far from perfection. However, I think I can let them off the hook this time. Even if the ending was slightly lame, “Wonder Woman” still turns out to be fun and engaging from beginning to end. Its finally refreshing to see a good movie from the other comic book brand and can safely say this one is certainly worth your time.
A few months ago, viewers were given the start of DC Comics’ Cinematic Universe known as Batman vs Superman. It was meant to be the big stepping stone in DC Comics’ foray into feature films but instead divided viewers and fans. Many felt it was the Citizen Kane of superhero movies while others thought the complete opposite. And despite being a financial success worldwide, movie executives wrote it off as a flop thanks to the negative public and critical reception. Fearing another flop on the horizon, “Suicide Squad” was given another look at and supposedly tinkered to avoid another brooding battle with viewers. Do the efforts pay off? No, but you can tell they were trying to make a popcorn flick.
Having not read any of the comics (outside of knowing some the characters), I was worried at first of how put off I would feel. The trailers sold this odd punked-out feature that didn’t match my expectations. But considering the hit list of duds I had to go through this summer, I was still open. Thankfully, Suicide Squad is not bad as I thought it would be. However, it’s far from being a good movie.
Following in the aftermath of Batman vs Superman, an intelligence operative (Viola Davis) offers a team of dangerous criminals for high risk missions. Among the group are elite hit man Deadshot (Will Smith redeeming his career), deranged doctor Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie chewing the scenery), smooth thief Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney, also trying to chew up the scenery), the cannibalistic Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje in impressive make up), a litterally hot headed ex-gangster named El Diablo (sympathetically performed by Jay Hernandez) and literal late add-on Katana (coolly performed by Karen Fukuhara).The team is assembled to stop a supernatural entity trying to destroy a city and that’s basically about it.
I felt a bit ashamed seeing there were parts of the movie I was engaged in. When characters would play off each other, I was actually starting to appreciate our group of anti-heroes. My favorite scene in the whole movie is when they break into a bar and just kick back for a bit. Some of them trade tragic stories while others show their true colors. This reminded me of the Batman TAS episode “Almost Got ‘Im”because it showed there is a side of humanity to these characters. We do get glimpses along the way via flashbacks of Deadshot having parental problems and the relationship troubles of Harley too. In a way, parts of it did remind me of the Saturday morning cartoon and how it balanced between the funny and dark moments.
When it has a joke, it can be funny. When it tries to be serious, it can be hit or miss while delivering a good moment. This is evident in Will Smith’s performance who I honestly didn’t mind that much. I felt like Smith was channeling his old days of blockbusters like Men in Black or Independence Day. He brings this tragic side to the character with the problem of his daughter pushing him to be good. Once in a while, Smith has a funny line or two while still showing essence of a three dimension being.
The same could be said for Margot Robbie’s take on Harley Quinn. Sure, she doesn’t look like the character but she channels the personality really well. There is a funny line Robbie says once in a while and her character does get interesting later on when we see her relationship with the Joker (Jared Leto). Personally, I really liked these group of characters and how strange yet similar they felt. However, with a 2 hour running time, I felt like some got shorthanded. I really wanted to see more of Killer Croc who barley got a line and while Katana is personally my favorite character of the batch, I felt she needed more to do. Ironically, Katana feels like a late addition to the story when she is introduced to us midway in the movie.
One of my concerns was how Jared Leto would live up to playing the Joker. And I admit, I was skeptical of the new look and wasn’t sold on it. And while I’m not a fan of the metal mouth appearance, I do admit Leto gets the personality nailed. Unlike Jessie Esienberg in Batman vs Superman, Leto has an understanding of this character and how he acts. There is a manic presence that doesn’t step on the toes of previous incarnations while doing its own thing. It felt more like a mad caped gangster fueled with punk. Unfortunately, he doesn’t appear for very long. Those expecting for the Joker to make a big impact will be disappointed to hear how little of an appearance he makes. I’d go as far to say Leto feels like an extended cameo as opposed to a driving force for the story. If you removed him from the story as a whole, it wouldn’t change anything drastically.
And this is where my main problem with Suicide Squad comes into place. I do admit, its more fun than the brooding vigilante battle we got in March and boasts a good soundtrack. There are points where I feel it started to scale back the mean-spirited tone that was present in trailers or the plot start to meander for a bit. The first act is fine despite setting up our characters in exposition fashion, the second part starts to recover and get fun while the big climax suffers from trying to be a “big finale” that others like Ghostbusters (1984) or Batman (1989) succeeded.
The villain of the movie (without giving too much away) wants to take over humanity just because of the changing days and that everyone doesn’t worship gods anymore. So what? Judging from the trailers, I thought the gang was going to go up against the Joker considering it appears that way (at least that’s what I thought from the advertising). Instead we get an ancient witch that plans to take over humanity by spreading its wicked and evilness across the world. In fact, forget it. Its very much just like the 1984 Ghostbusters but with stuff changed around.
I’m also not a big fan of the editing on this movie. The manner of the flashbacks are abused so much that I wanted to watch the movie and learn these characters. Instead, we spend the first 20 minutes or so hearing a wealth of information that is the equivalency of Wikipeida text. The golden rule of “show, don’t tell” gets easily abused too much here. And there were points when I felt some scenes went missing in spots. One minute Leto’s Joker is taking out a security guard at the prison gates and then it immediately cuts to the Joker’s gang shooting up police guards inside the prison. The manner of pacing is sacrificed so much, that it leads to lack of focus on the plot as we rush to the next action set piece.
Honestly, I was hoping for “Suicide Squad” to finally break the mold and show DC can do more than brooding movies. While I admit there is fun to be had here, the comic company has still a lot to improve upon. Don’t let your story introduce characters. Let your characters introduce themselves. Don’t be afraid to go too bloody or too mean spirited. I was actually hoping this to be as good as “Deadpool,” which was entertaining in how unapologetic it was. “Suicide Squad” suffers from trying to be balance between being a light summer blockbuster film and a cynical anit-hero at the same time. The final result is a mix bag that is still worth seeing. Because honestly, I’d rather be entertained by one of Killer Croc’s one liners than see any more footage of Jesse Eisenberg’s painful performance as Lex Luthor.
Trying to remember everything about “Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice” is like taking a math test. You know you studied it, but the answers are not coming to mind. Reminiscing about this movie is tougher considering the amount of material tossed in that doesn’t stick or pay off at the end. I saw this with a near full house and recall nine walk outs and plenty of quiet chit chat during some crucial scenes. Even a few cell phone lights were noticed in the crowd. If this is how this movie is being treated in other places, I wouldn’t be surprised. This is two and a half hours of talk, strange editing, bizarre acting and underwhelming fight scenes. Not to mention cinematography so bleak that it makes you wonder where did all the color go.
I should probably get the good stuff out of the way, seeing they are easier to talk about. Ben Affleck makes a good Batman. He’s suave and cunning when he’s Bruce Wayne, but brainy and crafty when donning the suit. They even give a small explanation for the hiding of the voice which covers up a plot hole looming over the franchise since day one. This comes in the form of an electronic voicebox which is a tad silly but forgivable. Least I hear that gruffling Bale voice, the better. And sadly, this is where most of the praise stops.
Bruce sets his sights on the man of steel,(Henry Cavill), as a financial building is destroyed during the fight with Zod, for questioning the strong man’s ethics. The motive is there but little of it feels driven. They set up a reason for it early on, but then it takes a backseat to Superman’s dilemma about how he is seen on Earth. There are times when they toss in this theme of Superman being depicted as a menace or a god, but it doesn’t come together in the end. Feeling like an oddball with superhuman abilities, Superman/Clark Kent seeks out to show he’s a figure of good while setting sights on debunking the vigilantism of the bat.
Its clear we have two different movies going on, but none of them come together until the final half. Most of the time, we get some scuffle as they see each other as pests. The only time their paths do cross is when Superman interrupts a chase scene and that’s really it. The big fight is saved for near the end and only exists because there is a “VS” in the title. There is no reason for this fight scene to occur considering the less amount of action that took place and how dialogue heavy everything is. The big confrontation has promise, but I feel borrows too much from Blade Runner as the two heroes duke it out within an abandoned building with rain drizzling in.
Looking back to the past, the crossover films had more going for them. King Kong Vs. Godzilla had the big ape being used to stop the lightening lizard and more fight scenes involved. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man was a clunky entry but the story line of Lawrence Talbot keeps it together with the monster battle saved as the end. Freddy Vs. Jason used itself to great potential, while Alien Vs. Predator was decent for the monster brawls. These crossovers hold more because they had one thing missing from this one, an actual story and excuse for these two to meet up.
This “excuse” comes in the form of Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) who has this plan to bring down these two “heroes” and that’s really it. In the previous incarnations, Luthor at least had an motive and reason; to make it rich and be the ultimate tycoon. While that is not interesting, what made the character unique was how he acted. Luthor to me was kind of like a car salesman with the brain of Albert Einstein. Despite his con man personality, he always appeared one step ahead and enjoyed every minute of his diabolical ingenuity. This Luthor I wanted to see get melted or pummeled to bits. Eisenberg appears to perform him like a bratty Richie Rich that is giddy and overly eccentric. Its not fun and comes off as so obnoxious that my eyes kept looking up at the ceiling of my cinema whenever he was on screen. I’d go further into why this plan doesn’t hold menace, but that would be spoiling a good part of the movie. All I can say is that they try to do this Frankenstein thing with his character but it doesn’t pay off and feels tagged on.
And that was the feeling I got from this movie. Everything felt tagged on and plastered to the wall just to see it stick. Its like “Hey, we need the people of Gotham and Metropolis to question how good the ethics of a hero are, because it was done in Watchman.” Or “Hey, we need Wonder Woman in this movie, just so we can have our Cinematic Universe.” Or “Hey, we need a last minute villain just so we can have this explosive finale and lead it into our Justice League movie.” And while I do admit seeing Gal Gadot as the lasso famed heroine was nice, it just felt there to please the fans clamoring for a Wonder Woman movie. Heck, you can even argue the whole movie is just a two and a half hour trailer seeing its edited that way. They do this thing where after a dramatic scene, it instantly cuts to black. At least give Roland Emmerich credit, he didn’t overuse them in his magnum opus Independence Day and used them to the right advantage. Here, they will have this big moment like Superman getting framed and then cuts to black and we see the LexCorp destroyed. It gets old very easy.
This movie is so bad that its own continuity doesn’t make sense. We see the origin of Batman inter-cutting the death of his parents with his discovery of the bat cave. But then later, we see Bruce drive past the Wayne Manor and its already destroyed and burnt down. I know the Manor was destroyed in Batman Begins, but wasn’t it rebuilt in The Dark Knight Rises? If this was meant to be a reboot of the Batman franchise, I would be fine with it. But little details like that take me out of the movie too easily.
Its funny because the night before, I saw a documentary called “The Death of Superman Lives” which covers the story of a Superman movie in the late 1990s that never got made. After seeing so many ideas and even some unique footage of Nicolas Cage in a decent Superman outfit, I’m starting to wish we got that movie instead of this one. “Batman vs Superman” doesn’t live up to its promised grudge until the final third. Everything else is so dull and delivered in a shoddy manner that I’d rather brush it off as a bad movie and move on. I feel bad because at least it did one thing right by giving us a Batman that works but not for this kind of movie. Even Jeremey Irons as Alfred feels underused compared to Micheal Cane who went on about speech after speech. There is only one good reason to see this movie other than Batman and that is to use this flick as an excuse to eat candy in the dark. Then again, same goes for every other feature running at your local cinema which probably holds better fun and entertainment than this Bat-Bomb.
Director Richard Donner gave us a superhero movie unlike any other. Or that would be the case if he was given free reign with “Superman II.” I will always argue to this day that what Donner could have done might have given us a sequel that no only matched the power of the original but quite possibly be better. However, Alexander and Ilya Salkind never let him finish his movie for the following reasons. During the production of the first movie, Donner ran into some problems with financing and film schedule while supposedly criticizing the producers in interviews around the time of the first movie’s release. On top of that, Marlon Brandon was promised a percentage of the box-office profits making for one expensive cameo if he was ever to be in the follow-up that was meant to be released in 1979.
As a result, the Salkinds got a new director, made heavy rewrites to what was already planned out and sought to make a sequel that was the combination of two worlds. This didn’t sit well with the cast and crew with some even refusing to return for the sequel under protest of Donner’s sacking. Most notable was Gene Hackman despite having all his scenes shot and yet cut down in the final version. It also didn’t help that the new director Richard Lester had to reshoot 51% of the film in order to gain credit for working on the movie. Well, “Superman II” came out in the summer of 1981 and was a box office hit but gained a noted amount of controversy over the dramatic production stories. It wouldn’t be till 2006, Richard Donner would complete his original cut (sort of) after learning all the original negatives for the first and second movie that HE FILMED was a London film vault. Thus, “Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut” was released to much praise and mixed reception among fans while showing a possible “what could have been” while fans having a hard time trying to place it in its own continuity. So the question begs, what is the better version?
Instead of going gun-ho and doing a compare and contrast, I felt it would be unfair to those who have not seen both versions. Seeing both movies share the same story despite difference in tone, I feel its only just to talk about the story first before going into what works and what doesn’t in a “spoiler-free” manner. Christopher Reeve returns as Superman along with his alter-ego Clark Kent but things get out of hand when his heartthrob Lois Lane figures out that Clark is Superman. As a result, he decides to spend a day off focusing on his romance with the Daily Planet reporter while even consider the temptation of being human giving up his superhero duties.
That all changes when surviving Kryptonian General Zod (Terence Stamp) escapes from a prison known as the Phantom Zone along with two of his accomplices and it doesn’t help they just so happen to be freed near Earth. As they start to take over the American nation (and the world…maybe), Superman now has a choice between being a savior to the world or being human forever despite a planet in the toil and torment of a cruel and militant supervillian.
After seeing “Superman II” a few times (along with its 2006 re-cut), already its slowly becoming one of my favorite sequels and for good reason. It asks would what it be like if our favorite superhero decided to take the day off. Would the world be in peril if he left his hometown alone? Would he be stuck between eternal paradise? And what are the consequences of a superhero gone mortal? To my surprise, every single one of those questions get answered while also digging into Superman’s psyche. Lois Lane maybe a huge responsibility to him but so is the world and it gets tough in the final act (without giving too much away) when both realize how hard it would be to manage a life together would turn out. This is main heart of both cuts and carries through no matter what changers or alterations they have between the two.
The performances are great and possibly better than the first. Christopher Reeve knows Superman has a big task between choosing a life with Lois or be a hero to the world. Instead of being muscle bound, he goes into the weakness of Superman as we seen him attempt a normal life and it shows what happens when such a grand hero goes weak in a modern world. Now reality is in and no longer at superhuman strength. Reeve really brings out the tragedy in the character when he has to make two sacrifices in one blow; the choice of being human while giving up a normal life continuing his normal responsibility. As always, Reeve and Margot Kidder are great together as Clark and Lois Lane but even the sequel develops more of the romance between them when Lois finds out that Clark is the famed caped wonder she dreams of. Now, all is changed and it looks right out of a fairy tale come true.
Gene Hackman also returns as the favorite fast-talking criminal mastermind Lex Luthor as he plans to make a pact with the evil Kryptonians in order to not only destroy Superman but even gain some more land property (“Australia,” he claims proudly with a cigar in his mouth.) Like the first movie, he soaks up and chews every bit of scenery with such delight as he coaxes into Zod about his knowledge for Superman while trying to keep himself alive at every step.
The villainous Kryptonians are also a huge highlight for “Superman II” and prove to be a huge challenge knowing the power they posses matches Superman to a degree. They can fly, shoot heat beams from their eyes and even as much strength as the hero himself. This is a huge problem knowing their powers match when they tear up Metropolis in a memorable and intense climax as a bus full of patrons are tossed around and many neon signs get blown to smithereens in the brawl. Those who accuse of “Man of Steel” for having Superman not save ALL of the people might want to take good note of this movie as even Reeve’s Superman knows he can’t save everyone in Metropolis as debris falls to the streets below yet he tries.
Its overall a really satisfying sequel but here is where the two cuts differ from each other. The theatrical cut goes for a more light tone than the first film while keeping a good bulk of the Donner footage intact. The goofier scenes clash with the intense moments as you almost wish there was a darker sequel along the lines of “The Empire Strikes Back.” Notable highlights include a man on roller skates being flown back by Zod’s super breath, Non (the hulking and strong of the three) getting a “Groot” style personality that is cartoonish and over the top, a bizarre cat and mouse fight at the Fortress of Solitude between Superman and the Kryptonians and that’s just to name a few. When the Richard Lester material was interwoven, there were moments when it did work like a small speech at the end from Lois about how Superman belongs to the world more than her but then you had moments that felt like generic action taken from a 1960s episode of Batman. Its clear the Salkinds wanted a safer vehicle to market and that’s really what it is.
The Richard Donner cut, on the other hand, uses a lot of the footage that Donner originally shot but only used the theatrical cut in places when “gaps” were needed. Again, only 75% of Donner’s film was shot and thus some material was needed to fill in open holes with the narrative. Thankfully, most of the goofy moments are cut but some elements still remain like in the Metropolis fight. But thanks to a little sound re-mixing and tight editing, the brawl is more slick and intense with certain gags removed with different shots or trimmed completely. One scene where Lois tricks Clark into revealing his true identity was never filmed but luckily there existed a screen test of Reeve and Kidder acting the scene out. Some film purists might be distracted by how Reeve wasn’t as muscular at the time and how much Margot Kidder’s hair differs, but I wasn’t distracted too much by it. The staging alone as well as the editing was enough to forgive it. It was also a nice addition to see two actors show a spark of chemistry even before they were hired for their roles!
But the biggest highlight that should go unnoticed is all of Marlon Brando’s footage as Jor-El that was filmed for the sequel is not only restored but really changes the narrative of the story. In the theatrical cut, Jor-El was replaced with Susannah York playing the hollogram of Superman’s mother. While its nice to see the same actress from the first movie reprise such a small role, the focus of the first film was on Superman and his father. This looses a lot of momentum in the theatrical cut as Jor-El’s cryptic prophecy “the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son” never fully pays off. Without spoiling too much, this line now feels complete here and Brando’s performance couldn’t be stronger. To think over 25 years and we would never see such incredible footage surface. This gives the alternate ending to “Little Shop of Horrors” a good run for its money.
“Superman II” is hands down a grand entry. The story alone makes it good enough to recommend as character arcs that were left open in the last film are explored and a greater threat is at play that not only challenges Superman physically but even mentally. Would it be worth it to have a normal life among the people or can he be both Clark and Superman to the end? Arguably, I’d say this is better than the first movie for being darker and more action-packed than the first film.
But it goes back to the original question, which is the better cut and here is my main problem. The theatrical version has a clash between light and dark as one can tell when the camp factor lies and where the serious material the Donner footage lies. But going in not knowing the troubled back story behind the sequel, they probably wouldn’t spot these “inconsistencies in tone” on first watch. But the more I watch, I keep asking myself why can’t it cut back on the camp and cheapness considering the amount of effort the first film had. The Richard Donner Cut is an improvement but it acts as more of a “what if.” As much as I enjoy the new additions and kept appreciating all the changes, its not really an official cut because Donner never completed what was intended as a whole. However, I will be honest and say had Donner complete his original vision, I’m sure we would have had one hell of a sequel and I do admire it for those reasons. But are not completely bad and have their own strengths and weaknesses while still manage to be entertaining. I can’t think of moment when I saw something that was really awful or made me turn off. I’d say watch both and judge for yourself.
“Superman: The Movie” is considered by many to be one of the greatest comic book adaptions of all time. A man that can fly and posses super powers beyond any normal man has been such an iconic staple in American culture, it makes you wonder how he is so well embedded. At the time, superhero movies were considered a huge risk seeing they existed in 1950s serials and TV shows but no one attempted a full-length feature film. Well, they gave it a good shot and sure enough, “Superman” was a huge hit. Since then, others have tried to copy its formula of what makes it work while others succeeded in keeping with the spirit of the film. By sticking close to the source of the comic and using the current technology at the to bring the original vision to life. It wasn’t easy and I’m sure there were some difficult liberties but the final result is a film that makes you “believe a man can fly.” However, this was back in 1978. A time when the blockbuster was starting to become a mainstream regular. Considering how times have changed, does it make this movie dated?
To be fair, it really goes all the way in delivering a superhero movie that is true to the original story while also timeless. We are treated to the origin of Kal-El who escapes the destruction of his home planet Krypton that becomes an asteroid field thanks to its sun exploding on them. The baby makes its way to Earth under the care of an elderly folk where he grows up to find out his true birth right. Knowing this information, he discovers from pre-recorded messages from his dad (played by Marlon Brando) that he posses greater power than any usual mortal and dedicates his life to being a savior of the planet.
Christopher Reeve takes the role of the super powered being who is faster than a speeding bullet and able to fly around the world in a mere hour. Thankfully, he really does a great job at not just a heroic savior but also the bumbling alter-ego Clark Kent. Its the typical awkward nerd trope that is used in countless superhero movies when a powerful being needs a disguise but for the time, its enjoyable and doesn’t get any degrading. The reason I can think of that Clark has someone to play off his bumbling self; that being his love interest Lois Lane (Margot Kidder.) Remember when I mentioned one of my main problems of the Amazing Spider-Man movies was how the love interest was played up to be typical awkward teen love and had that constant on and off again situation where they teased about them being together? Well, here is where it all started and I think its done better here; that is till Superman II perfecting it.
When Reeve and Kidder are on screen, you don’t see two actors making googly eyes and reading from the script. There is good chemistry between them as Clark knows when to be subtle on the geek moments and Lois just takes it as a typical quirk. But when Clark is Superman and doing things like flying with Lois or saving her from danger, we get this sense of care that isn’t phoned in. The two really act like a great pair as Lois teases with Clark while Superman does the same to Lois. Its funny seeing it comes off as a strange love triangle as one makes subtle winks to another but its all around cute.
But what is a superhero movie without a villain? Midway, we get introduced to Lex Luthor performed by Gene Hackman who clearly shows he’s having a good time mucking it up as the bad guy. From his underground layer in the subway to one fake hair piece after another, he plans to convert the California state in Luthor owned property by means of two hijacked missiles planted at the San Andrea Fault. Again, this is something all superhero movies would carry with the criminal mastermind that has an impossible plan but “Superman” at least makes it work to an extant. There’s only so much of our suspension of disbelief we can carry at times but the villainous plan gets a pass because of its execution. Compared to the later movies where it would get sillier and sillier, Luthor’s plot is played to be more of a tycoon that sees every step doesn’t get pigeonholed or brought down by the smallest of things. And again, you can tell Gene Hackman is having a blast playing this villain from his over the top anger to his cocky attitude that makes him look like he was too good for Wall Street.
As much what works well for this movie, there are some elements that don’t hold up as much in my opinion. On first watch, the pacing of “Superman” can feel slow and that’s because there’s so much material it has to set up like the origin story and Superman trying to prove he is a hero. With so much at bay, you wonder what is the true narrative or motivation. I’d argue its Kal-El struggling to make something of himself but then you have to be introduced to the villain Luthor and his “master plan” doesn’t go into action till the last 30 minutes of the movie. Newcomers who are expecting a mesh between origin tale and solid story might be disappointed or find the pacing a little uneven as the “Man of Steel” himself establishes his part to Metropolis for the first half of movie while the final half leans more towards a good vs. evil story. Its passable but I would have liked to see a way of how to insect the two.
Also, while some of the characters are memorable, there are a select few that don’t hold up as well. Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine play two accomplices of Lex Luthor that tend to feel more like goofy stock characters than three dimensional beings. Valerie as Lex’s girlfriend is a small exception seeing she has a bit of redemption at the end but Ned Beatty’s Otis is just unforgiving. Its the stereotypical bumbling henchman that goofs up just to make the kids laugh. There are a few times when his character can be funny but other times it can get groan inducing with his tough speech impediment-like accent and meat headed personality. Thankfully, it doesn’t diminish the enjoyment of the movie too much.
Now something I should address is that there exists three different versions of this movie. And if you are to start with a certain cut, I’d say possibly the original theatrical cut or the 2000 extended edition would be fine. This third version is known by fans as the “Salkind International Extended Cut” which is far longer clocking in at 3 hours and 8 minutes. Back then, ABC offered to air “Superman: The Movie” as a “pay per minute” deal. Thus, the two producers compiled a version of the movie that had over 40 minutes of deleted scenes that expanded on certain scenes like the destruction of Krypton, added moments like Lois interviewing an Indian chief or Lex Luthor prepping his car crash distraction and even restored some John Williams score that was trimmed in the theatrical cut. As a whole, its interesting to see tons of added footage but it sort of hampers with the narrative a bit slowing the pace even more. If you can find it, its a nice little gem but I wouldn’t recommend it for first time viewers.
The 2000 extended edition, however, is a cut that was supervised by director Richard Donner along with film editor Michael Thau and has a few select scenes from the longer television edit. The reason not all the footage was added was due to poor visual effects and this version was more of a “professional edit” than rather a syndicated pick-up for television. While the film was restored, the audio elements were punched up a bit with some extra sound effects in spots where the original audio was deemed “unusable.” In terms of the added scenes, its very much like the Director’s Cut to “Wrath of Khan.” They are subtle and interesting while they don’t alter the narrative flow too much. Highlights include Kal-El talking to his father more in the Fortress of Solitude, a young Lois Lane seeing Clark run pass the train she is on and a whole sequence where Lex Luthor tires to fire bullets, burn and freeze Superman as the caped wonder makes his way to Luthor’s layer. As stated, these additions are fine alone so either version can be viewed on its own.
“Superman: The Movie” shouldn’t be forgotten as another “run of the mill” comic book movie. Without it, where would we be with today’s noble work like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy. Clearly they owe a lot to this movie because no one even attempted a superhero film on this scale. It proved that viewers can see pass the wires and marvel at Christopher Reeve flying in the air because of how much life he brings to the character alone. Even the special effects still hold up well enough as we see Superman fly into the air and even a great magnitude of practical effects to hide the illusion. We know its rear projection and wires but there’s such a great blend to the point we don’t care and marvel at the effort. And that’s the keyword; effort. For the first superhero movie of its time, everyone was doing their part to bring a blockbuster epic that no one has attempted. So, if you want to see where the comic book movie craze all begin, the consider this one a decent recommendation. While its dated in spots and at times goes for a more artistic stride in sets and special effects, you just can’t help but believe that a Superman can fly…