Superman is kind of a weird one for me, because I can acknowledge how well made it is and how influential it became, but at the same time, I was still disappointed. I'm familiar enough with Superman. I know he was sent to Earth, I know he grew up in Smallville, I know he went to work at the Daily Planet etc. So seeing two-thirds of this movie depicting those events just didn't interest me all that much. Of course, this was made for newcomers as well as comic book fans, people hadn't seen these events played out on the big screen yet AND this was intended as part 1 of a two-part film (Superman II), but that still ultimately doesn't change the fact that as a viewer in 2023, I didn't find all that much to keep me hooked beyond seeing how these specific actors play these roles.
The only 'original' storyline develops towards the end, when Gene Hackman's broadly comedic incarnation of Lex Luthor steals a pair of rocket missiles to nuke a part of the world and profit from it. Hardly the most emotionally investing of storylines, but mildly entertaining I suppose. And that's kind of it. Again, I fully respect how well put together Superman is, and how big of a game-changer it was at the time, but for me in the here and now, I guess I just wanted more than a film adaptation of Superman's Wikipedia article.
I think the most impressive aspect of the film for me was Christopher Reeve's acting, and how well he separated the Clark/Superman identities. Even though the glasses routine is as ludicrous as ever, he really managed to sell the idea of the two seeming like totally different people.
There are two versions of this film: the theatrical cut compiled by Richard Lester and the director's cut compiled by Richard Donner, who was booted off the film back in the 1980s due to creative differences with the producers. My personal take is that the Lester version (with all due respect to him, I'm sure he was a good man just doing his job) is a bastardisation. It's a re-edited mess with way too much inane slapstick comedy inserted in. The 2006 Donner cut is not perfect either due to the circumstances, but it made a big difference in how I felt about the film. Superman II (as intended by Donner) is my favourite of the series. It builds on the established worldbuilding of the first to tell a truly grandiose alien invasion story, led by Terence Stamp's brilliantly laconic General Zod ("Rise before Zod. Now, kneel before Zod.") and aided by Hackman's ever-so-grifty Lex Luthor, who is infinitely better suited to be a minor antagonist bouncing off a bigger one.
While all this is going on, Superman and Lois come to a crossroads in their relationship, and seeing Reeve truly torn up about which path to take - Clark or Superman? - especially when he starts suffering from the consequences of his actions was spectacular. It's his best perfomance by a mile. And if you watch the Donner cut, you'll also see Brando being terrific alongside him. I don't want to downplay Margot Kidder either. She's not my favourite Lois, but I think she really put her all into this character. Surprisingly, I think her best scene was that screen test they edited in. I loved how devious she was about finding Superman's secret.
I won't lie, this is probably my favourite comic book film now. In scope, in talent, in execution (again, Donner cut only), it just blew me away.
There are some solid ideas in Superman III, but for the most part, the script is just an excuse for one silly comedy setpiece after another, without any coherence or quality writing. For whatever reason, Richard Pryor is the star of the show, and his neverending antics fail to amuse. I don't even really get what his character was supposed to be about. Is he a hapless bum or a greedy bastard? Why is he suddenly a computer genius? Who knows, who cares? The villains in general were forgettable. They tried to go for the same humorous group of misfits as Lex Luthor's gang, but the writing wasn't there to make that work.
What I liked about the movie were some of the character moments. It was nice to see more of Jimmy Olsen. Annette O'Toole (later Smallville's Martha Kent) as Lana Lang was an inspired casting choice and she adds some desperately needed heart to the film. I think she actually has more chemistry with Reeve than Kidder ever did. She seemed to genuinely enjoy and appreciate Clark for who he was without Superman, and it was lovely watching them interact. Seeing Clark become a washed-up alcoholic version of himself was probably the best part of the movie. They should have focused much more on this. The moment where Lana Lang's son refuses to believe Superman has turned evil is genuinely great, and the only time the movie really comes alive. Alas, the entire conflict is resolved by Superman randomly splitting in two and choking his evil self to death. It's weird and kind of gruesome for what's supposed to be a wholesome moment of him overcoming his flaws. Again, more time spent on this and actually showing Clark's doubts and issues rather than wiping it all under the carpet would have been much better. In the final product, he just randomly turns evil because of kryptonite. We don't get any insight into what Clark's problems actually are. Without Reeve's earnest acting and the idea of Lana's son refusing to believe in his downfall, it would've just been another weird idea that came and went.
The movie completely collapses in the special effects-heavy final act, where logic flees out of sight and the heroes (Pryor now counted amongst them despite nearly ruining the coffee industry in Colombia - don't ask) are left to defeat some kind of Skynet-wannabe supercomputer that apparently was going to be Brainiac until the writers had a stroke and came up with whatever this is instead. Richard Lester just wasn't a good fit for this franchise.
The cast is rounded out by the presence of iconic thespian Peter O'Toole, who plays a kind of kooky mentor figure (not exactly Brando's dignified Jor-El). He also brings a fun levity to the film whenever he appears, and some of its most somber moments when the characters become trapped in the Phantom Zone. Speaking of which, it was very cool to finally get to see the hellish place after they kept talking about it in the first two films.
Special effects vary from pretty great to horrendous. Not sure what happened there. The final battle against Selena's monster in particular is kind of a mess. But the production design of Argo City and Supergirl's abilities always look spectacular. Pacing-wise, the film is mostly alright, but takes a dip during an overlong subplot involving Supergirl enrolling into high school. Why she does it is never really explained either. But who cares, it ain't that kinda movie. As long as you're enjoying yourself, nothing matters and to me, this is definitely one of the more entertaining entries in the series!
By this point, logic and budget had clearly gone out of the window. But I'd be lying if I said the heart did. Superman IV was produced only under the caveat that Christopher Reeve could tell a story about the nuclear arms race (a major topic during the Cold War) and his performance reflects how seriously he felt about the threat of mutual annihilation. Superman has seldom looked as conflicted and lost in internal struggle as he does in this film. No matter what your thoughts are on the rest of the picture, he is still amazing in it.
The rest of the picture, though, feels like an attempt to recapture the glory days. Most of the score is reused from the first two films. Lois is once again a main character and her arc is essentially a retread of her Superman II storyline, complete with memory-wiping kiss. Somehow they convinced Gene Hackman to reprise Lex Luthor. He's still a lot of fun, but brings nothing new to the table save for the amazingly camp Nuclear Man (or 'Nucular Man' as Gene insists on pronouncing it), who is admittedly a wonderful baddie with his roaring and painted nails.
It's not a good movie. It's not even a 'so bad it's good' classic, but you could do much worse than this. There's some solid character moments, they try to relay a meaningful message about global cooperation, the callbacks to the earlier films are appreciated (even if there are a bit too many) and the acting is genuinely great still. It's the lazy Roger Moore flick of the Superman canon.
So they had twenty years to figure out how to course-correct this franchise, and this flat, sluggish aimless retread is the best they could come up with? Purporting to be a celebration of the iconic hero, Superman Returns is in fact the worst film in the original Reeve continuity. Nothing happens in it. No struggle, no interesting characterisation, no cool action sequences, nothing. The dialogue is workman-like and unmemorable. Lex Luthor's latest evil scheme is lifted straight from the 1978 film, now only with extra steps. The new cast are all poor replacements, with the possible exception of Kevin Spacey as Luthor. However, he cannot salvage the terrible script either, and constantly bounces between his usual brand of sly intimidation and Hackman's flippancy. Everyone else are completely drained of any personality. The few interesting ideas this film has - namely Clark having a son and struggling to reintergrate into human society after a five-year absence - go nowhere.
And the direction is some of the worst I've ever seen. There's a piss-colored filter over everything, the sets and lighting are dark and grimy for no reason (how did the Fortress of Solitude go from bright and blue to shadowy and green?), the pace is extremely languid. Every scene takes ages to get to the point, and none of the points are even worth it. It's such a boring and pointless film.
No comments:
Post a Comment