*****
****1/2
****
***1/2
***
**1/2
**
*1/2
*
1/2
You'll Believe A Man Can Fly!
"Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and power are needed. And always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason, above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son." - Jor-El
Release Date: December 15, 1978
Studio: Warner Brothers
Director: Richard Donner
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, Trevor Howard, Margot Kidder, Terence Stamp, Phyllis Thaxter
Plot Summary: Unable to convince the ruling council of Krypton that their world will destroy itself soon, scientist Jor-El takes drastic measures to preserve the Kryptonian race: He sends his infant son Kal-El to Earth. There, gaining great powers under Earth's yellow sun, he will become a champion of truth and justice. Raised by the Kents, an elderly farm couple, Clark Kent learns that his abilities must be used for good. The adult Clark travels to Metropolis, where he becomes a mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet...and a caped wonder whose amazing feats stun the city: Superman! Meanwhile, Lex Luthor, the world's greatest criminal mind, is plotting the greatest real estate swindle of all time. Can't even the Man of Steel stop this nefarious scheme?
Comments?
Related Threads:
-Superman II/Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman III Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman IV: The Quest For Peace Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman Returns Talkback (Spoilers)
-Supergirl Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman: The Movie Soundtrack Talkback
-Action Comics "Last Son" Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman: The Ultimate Collector's Edition DVD Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman Returns DVD Talkback (Spoilers)
Last edited by Stu; 07-10-2003 at 02:35 PM.
Member
Member
I think it's mostly crap. They made no effort to make this movie timeless. It just SCREAMS 1970s, from the jive-talking hipsters to the terrible suits. And they also made no effort to differentiate Metropolis from NYC... they showed the World Trade Center, for god's sake! "Metropolis" in this film is a dirty, dingy, dark place. It's ugly to look at. I'll admit, there is some good set design in other parts of the movie, but the rest is crap. The Bugle offices, Luthor's stupid underground pool...
Man, don't get me started on Luthor! One of the worst portrayals of any character I've ever seen. He's just a goofy comedic idiot. And the wig... god!
While most people tend to idolize Chris Reeve's performance, I don't think he was anything special. He's not terribly muscular, and his flying scenes were laughable - but I guess that's not really his fault.
Banned
Wow, a strong opinion of greatness and a strong opinion of hatred. I'm in between, I thought it was an O.K movie, nothing great, but nothing horrible. I would probably like it better if I saw it when it premiered, but that can't happen now. I give it a B-.
mmm...fishheads
The movie had good special effects for the 1970s, and I even have the soundtrack on tape. Though there were some parts I didn't like (particularly the one about the pool (?); it's been awhile), the movie has decent acting. I give it a B+
Badass Cyborg
Probably the greatest comic book movie ever made.
-Terminatah
wuh oh
Senior Member
I think you have an extra "T" in your name.Originally Posted by Hatter
I also think Superman 1 is the best comic movie period!
Easily the best live action Superman translation to date. I hadn't seen this movie in years until I decided to get the DVD, and it still holds up as one of the better comic book movies. It has ages better than all the Batman's IMO, simply because its slightly more realistic. That may sound weird, him being an alien and all but, I think, its what would happen if a stranger became the worlds new hero. Some things remain a mystery, how they manages to make spandex work on screen being the biggest.
It took some stones for Donner to make the way he did, at an intelligent adult audience, giving a lot of screen time to Jor-El and the Kryptonian council and having a good hour go by before we see Superman himself. While they absoloutly nailed the Smallville part, I think a lot more could have been done with Metropolis,as it was painfully odvious it was NYC. This is the only area the set designers fail IMO, I thought the Fortress of Solitude, the Kent Farm and Luthors 'apartment' where all done to perfection. I also found that the cast where all likeable, and all worked in thier roles. Lois Lane was fine to me, but I am used to seeing Teri Hatcher in the mediocre Lois and Clark, so that might have something to do with it. Christoper Reeves nailed Superman. No one could match a better transaltion of a living comic book character until Hugh Jackman came along and stole the show in X-Men, and Affleck did the same in Daredevil. It even set up the sequel, with Superman fighting Zod and the other 2 Kryptonian villians. And the score is simply the best ever done. Williams was robbed of his Oscar IMO.
A brilliant film. Whoever makes the new Superman film has massive shoes to fill.
Last edited by Stu; 02-02-2008 at 10:44 AM.
It's the best superhero film money could buy in the 70s, and still holds up pretty well today. The big weak spot is the dopey villain, but this was corrected in the second film. After that it all went to hell.
With the arrival of Superman Returns (review, talkback, DVD talkback) and Superman: The Ultimate Collector's Edition (review, DVD talkback) onto DVD today, what better time to discuss the Super films? Let's go!
You'll Believe A Man Can Fly!
"Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and power are needed. And always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason, above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son." - Jor-El
Release Date: December 15, 1978
Studio: Warner Brothers
Director: Richard Donner
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, Trevor Howard, Margot Kidder, Terence Stamp, Phyllis Thaxter
Plot Summary: Unable to convince the ruling council of Krypton that their world will destroy itself soon, scientist Jor-El takes drastic measures to preserve the Kryptonian race: He sends his infant son Kal-El to Earth. There, gaining great powers under Earth's yellow sun, he will become a champion of truth and justice. Raised by the Kents, an elderly farm couple, Clark Kent learns that his abilities must be used for good. The adult Clark travels to Metropolis, where he becomes a mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet...and a caped wonder whose amazing feats stun the city: Superman! Meanwhile, Lex Luthor, the world's greatest criminal mind, is plotting the greatest real estate swindle of all time. Can't even the Man of Steel stop this nefarious scheme?
Comments?
Related Threads:
-Superman II/Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman III Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman IV: The Quest For Peace Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman Returns Talkback (Spoilers)
-Supergirl Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman: The Movie Soundtrack Talkback
-Action Comics "Last Son" Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman: The Ultimate Collector's Edition DVD Talkback (Spoilers)
-Superman Returns DVD Talkback (Spoilers)
The Brave. The Bold. The World's Finest. - Marvel Animation Age
Follow The World's Finest and Marvel Animation Age on: Twitter - Facebook - Tumblr
A year ago (hell two weeks ago, really) I was calling the Reeve's films crap. I still partially stand by that statement, but I can slightly appreciate Donner's film's a bit more now. The wacky Luthor still irks me and the ending....good lord, the ending. But still, the story and interaction between Clark/Lois/Superman is always fun to watch.
Rather surprised this thread doesn't have more replies by now!
-BB
Wallcrawler
I think it has to do with the fact that alot of people may not have seen these movies as they are rather old. I have been having a blast revisiting these old Superman movies. Sure they are not perfect but they really do fit the time when they were made. I think this movie also presents a great version of Superman's origin though I am still not too fond of the whole crystal-based decor of Krypton. I did think the releaseof these movies to DVD would spark some conversation in these movies.
"Most people spend their whole lives trying to figure out who they are. But for me? It's about keeping it a secret." - Spider-Man
"Why is there so much hatred and bigotry? Why do we hate people who seem to be different than we are instead of enjoying the variety?"- Stan Lee
Avatar Courtesy of Nightwing
Member
I've commented on this movie on many other threads, but until recently when I bought myself 2001 on DVD, this was the only movie I ever cared about enough to own.
Jaded audiences today can laugh at it now that more true to the source material comic book movies have finally been made, but when this movie was created, it was one of a kind, visionary even. Donner and Mankiewicz didn't make their Superman a fat, bloated old joke as was the image of comic book superheroes at the time, which by the way were dying out.
They strove for "versimilitude", trying to realize a world where Superman could exist that still seemed recognizably like our own (Burton went the other way with his Batman and created a goth cartoon world where humans are trapped with over the top grotesques). Recently, Batman Begins and the X-Men and Spiderman movies as well as the Fantastic Four movie did the same thing.
Superman was one of the first big summer movie blockbusters in a time before multiplexes on every corner showing films 24/7 on two or three screens apiece, and maybe the first attempt to film a movie and its sequel at the same time. It was also nearly the crescendo of optical visual effects before the advent of computer graphics and digital techniques in movies (this year's Superman Returns wasn't even filmed at all; it was recorded with new digital cameras).
Had it failed to succeed, I believe that comic book superheroes would have faded away by the beginning of the 80s, since DC and Marvel mostly exist now as loss leaders for maintaining movie and toy licenses.
An excellent point, Peter. With the special effects team working on the daunting task of making audiences believe a man could fly, Donner and Mankiewicz really got into the heart of the characters and to be blunt, no one has come anywhere close to topping them since. Lester was too busy ruining the sequel and Singer tried but missed the mark with his ill-thought out story which had the potential to be amazing but instead just becomes redundant.
One of my favourite scenes in the movie is just after Lois and Superman's "date" as Lois gets ready for dinner with Clark and he takes off his glasses, looks down at them and Superman says "Lois, there's something I want to tell you" before ultimately changing his mind and going back to Clark and bumbling about how nervous he was.
No superhero movie would even come close to topping this until Spider-Man finally came along in 2002, and you can tell this film certainly inspired it.
Wallcrawler
I found this interesting take on Superman: The Movie at The Pulse that I thought was worth posting.
Each generation enjoys “their” stuff more than whatever came before (with a few notable exceptions, of course). However, even those like me who view Superman as the best of the superhero best are not unaware of the three major gripes people have against this film.
Two of the complaints are hard to argue against. You either enjoy Margot Kidder’s rendition of “Can You Read My Mind” or you run screaming from the room whenever this bit of “musical poetry” commences (for the record, I’m in the former category). There are also those who scratch their head at the way the film ends. “Why is Superman spinning the world backwards?” they ask, unaware and/or perplexed by the filmmaker’s visual representation of time travel. I must admit, the people behind the film didn’t do themselves any favors here…they could have been a lot clearer about just how far back in time Superman went to “fix” the ills of the world. Still, this confusion doesn’t torpedo the film for me. But as I said before, it’s hard to convince someone who doesn’t like these things to change their mind.
Which brings us to the third major critique against Superman: That the film is really, really good until we reach Metropolis and it becomes way too humorous/silly/campy. While the first act of the film presents the solemn, otherworldly majesty of the doomed planet Krypton and the second act of the film presents the nostalgic sepia toned world of Smallville, the third act, Metropolis, piles on a mix of humor and thrills. To some, the humor, especially with regard to Lex Luthor and Otis, undercuts what could, indeed what should, have been the greatest superhero film.
And they couldn’t be more wrong.
Superman is one of those very rare films that tries mightily to give its audience its money’s worth. If you take a moment to think about it, Superman is literally crammed with multiple genres. Science fiction is well represented, as is action and suspense. We’ve also got plenty of romance and music (both orchestral and…other). We also have end of the world destruction (a popular subgenre at the time, see the original Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake, and The Towering Inferno).
And humor. Lots of humor. But not just one type. Superman presents a robust, well defined romantic comedy (Lois and Clarke & Lois and Superman). The movie also features a take on the Three Stooges slapstick in the form of the interaction between Luthor and Otis (the modern day equivalent of Moe (Luthor) versus Larry/Curly (Otis)). We’ve got puns, we’ve got jokes, both blatant and subtle. We laugh at what happens to the little girl after her cat is rescued by Superman from the tree, and we also laugh at the subtle comic book in-joke that finds Clark Kent looking at a modern day phone booth and realizing it won’t work when he needs to change duds.
In sum, Superman isn’t so much a movie as it is a cultural Cliffs Notes. At some point you will find elements of just about every movie genre tucked into it, and to deny or ignore humor would have made for a very grim and, in my opinion, ultimately dull movie.
“Ah,” you protest. “Having a good dose of humor is fine. But we certainly could have done without presenting Luthor and, particularly, Otis as such a pair of fools.”
To which I reply: Making Luthor appear so outwardly silly is more than just another way of injecting humor into Superman. It also a subtle, and very clever, slight of hand.
For while we laugh (or groan) at the antics of Luthor and Otis, we also, subconsciously, let our guard down. This is Superman’s big threat? There’s no way Luthor could really be any danger to Superman, right?
Wrong.
You see, this is where the movie’s script becomes quite clever. Sure, the makers of the film could have presented Luthor as yet another clever, scheming villain, a la James Bond’s parade of super-baddies. But instead of going down that familiar (and I would argue, clichéd) route, screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz opted for a clever bit of misdirection that also fed off the campiness that had been all the rage just a few short years before in the Batman TV show.
Unlike those truly campy villains, however, this villain’s silliness was something he displayed only on the outside. Inside, Luthor was a cold, cruel, and calculating killer. Indeed, his very first action within the film proves this. As Otis is followed into the subway on his way to Luthor’s lair, Luthor dispatches the lawman in a most gruesome manner by thrusting him under the wheels of a subway train. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall seeing Ra’s Al Gul or Doc Octopus do anything quite that vicious in either Batman Begins or Spider-Man 2.
Later in the film, Luthor is quick to recognize that Superman is a threat to his schemes. Instead of embarking on some silly attack, he sits back and shifts through everything he can find about Superman. It doesn’t take him too long to realize the man of steel’s greatest weakness: Kryptonite.
Having done this, Luthor then lures our hero into his hideout and, using Superman’s own cockiness (he, like the audience, dismisses the possibility that Luthor could possibly be any real threat), gently pushes Superman into his kryptonite trap.
What follows is almost unheard of in a film of this type: Superman, our great hero, loses. Think about it: The missile Luthor has re-targeted hits its mark. The man of steel has to literally move heaven and earth to fix everything, and even then he’s too late to save Lois Lane from death. The campy clown proves he’s exactly what he said he is: a master schemer, the greatest criminal mind in the world. And Superman, poor Superman, finds that the only way he can triumph, the only way he can set everything right is by … cheating.
Yes, cheating.
For the only way to undo Luthor’s actions is by, quite literally, undoing them. Going back in time in the film becomes the equivalent of a golfer asking for a “do over”.
So, the campy silliness Luthor and Otis engage in, while on the surface very entertaining to those who, like me, enjoyed those antics, is a way of disarming the audience and lulling them, like Superman himself, into a false sense of superiority. Silly as he may be, Luthor is no complete fool. This becomes very apparent when Superman and Luthor meet for the first time and have this exchange revealing exchange:
Superman: Is that how a warped brain like yours gets its kicks, by planning the death of innocent people?
Luthor: No. By causing the death innocent people.
I don’t know about you, but it was at that point that the veneer of silliness blew away like smoke in a hurricane. In the end, you still might not like how Luthor was portrayed, but you have to admit he proved a formidable villain.
"Most people spend their whole lives trying to figure out who they are. But for me? It's about keeping it a secret." - Spider-Man
"Why is there so much hatred and bigotry? Why do we hate people who seem to be different than we are instead of enjoying the variety?"- Stan Lee
Avatar Courtesy of Nightwing
If only Bryan Singer had read that piece. Given how brilliant Hackman's Lex Luthor was and how utterly wasted Kevin Spacey was in Superman Returns one wonders how the film might have changed if they had put the same level of thought/heart into it.
Member
I couldn't disagree more, and I'm a gigantic fan of Superman: The Movie (see up-thread), as are Singer and his writing partners.
Had Singer read the above piece, he'd point out that Superman only escapes defeat at Luthor's hand because Lois and family are there to save him and then this time he can't cheat and undo the awful things Luthor has done to him by just spinning the world back, to regain the love of his life and the collective knowledge and technology of his ancestry -Spoiler:
I thought there was a lot of humor and charm in Superman Returns, and also a timeless quality that one-upped the now extremely dated Metropolis segment of the first movie, that looks and feels so 1970s.
Senior Member
Superman Returns certainly has Donner's original beaten in terms of the timeless look and general production qualities. STM does look like a 70s movie, but still, there's just something missing from SR. It just doesn't have the heart and soul of STM. It seems to be much more style over substance, and as silly as certain aspects of STM were, it was fun and entertaining, where SR often drags quite a bit. And as far as Luthor goes, Spacey's lifeless performance can't even be mentioned in the same breath as Hackman's brilliant portrayal of Luthor, and Kitty was a sad substitute for the luscious and charming Miss Teschmacher.
I really wanted to love SR, but it just isn't half the movie STM was and still is. 4.5 stars for STM's ability to provide timeless wonder in spite of its 70s visuals.
Posting Permissions
| toonzone quick jump |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks