 |
| Christopher Reeve: whom many consider the definitive Superman. © 1978 Warner Bros. |
As an unabashed Superman fan, I've been very protective of Man of Steel, and a lot of the acerbic reaction to the film has come from fans--or people purporting to be fans--of the Christopher Reeve films. That being the case, I wanted to look at the films of Christopher Reeve. The good, the bad, the overrated, the underrated. He may have indeed been the definitive Superman, but I also think that a certain cult of personality has developed around him (especially after his 1995 accident) but what's really important is the films themselves.
Now, I'm sorry that this writing had to start on a sour note, but that's what the character's fandom is becoming: sour. There's always some rivalry attached to the character, and I think enough is enough. Meanwhile, his popularity since these films ended has been like a weird EKG; and the almost barbarous division in the character's on fandom is much more disturbing than any attempt at "making him dark."
This is not going to be a bunch of reviews in the sense that I'm not recommending or not-recommending these films. You won't see any star ratings here, nor will I direct a particular type to see these films. They are that they are: the first one is required viewing. The subsequent ones… not so much. I'm also not going to talk about the 1984 Supergirl movie, or the 2006 quasi-sequel Superman Returns. In all likelihood, you've already seen them if you're reading my blog, so this is more of a collection of my thoughts.
Superman: the Movie (1978)
As I've said before, this is one of the most pivotal moments in the character's history. Not only did it say that you could make a blockbuster out of an old comic book or, well, anything else people might find silly or quaint. In film history, there tends to be two of every movie, and I would compare this film to Paramount's Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Both were highly-anticipated science-fiction films based on existing "franchises" (I hate that word but it works here) and to not be afraid to pump some money into what might have been a cheepie serial or TV series.
The story has become a template for the Hollywood of today. The producers, Alexander & Ilya Salkind along with Pierre Spengler, went to Warner Bros. with a proposal to take the character they owned--Superman--and make a multi-million dollar production with an unknown in the main role surrounded by huge stars. In fact, Marlon Brando's salary of an unprecedented $3.7 million was controversial at the time, and set what many would call a dangerous precedent.
 |
| Marlon Brando & Suzannah York as Jor-El and Lara © 1978 Warner Bros. |
After a long, storied search for a director and star, the Salkinds hired Richard Donner, who had gained prominence for his film The Omen, and thanks to this film, would become one of the hottest directors in Hollywood. Donner, in turn, went with his gut and rolled the dice on an unknown by the name of Christopher Reeve.
The film begins with the image of an old comic book and a little girl's voice saying, "in the decade the 1930s, even the city of Metropolis was not spared the ravages of the Great Depression," which strikes me as incredibly weird and corny. It would make sense if the film took place in the '30s, or if they were playing up the idea that it's a comic book story; but it's just kind-of there. It doesn't really serve the story or the atmosphere.
Speaking of atmosphere: this film has that in spades. Once that bit of nonsense is over, we're treated to one of the greatest title sequences in history, as we cruise through space to John Williams' brilliant Superman march. The lettering flies past us as we see all sorts of space phenomenon taking place. It's an incredible flurry of sights and sounds, that ends on an establishing shot of Krypton.
This Krypton is quite different from what the comics had been. Rather than a civilization with a bunch of advanced machinery and costumes right out of an old serial, we see an ice planet where "technology" comes in the form of what seems like magical crystals. Brando's voice bellows, "this is no fantasy!" and we see him reigning over the trial of three criminals who had apparently attempted to overthrow the government. Within the context of this film, this comes off as incredibly pointless, and it would have served the film better if it had been dealt with as more of a cliffhanger. After-all, it is paid off in the second film. But from a fan's perspective, it just comes off as an arbitrary change to make Jor-El a judge. I mean, I'm not saying, "oh no, they changed it, now it sucks," but it is incredibly contrived. Are people usually both judges and astrophysicists? Is Jor-El just that much of a renaissance man?
Jor-El promises that neither he nor his wife will leave Krypton, but then, inevitably, he places his baby Kal-El into a small (oddly-shaped) rocketship and sends him to Earth.
What follows is the heart and soul of the picture. Glen Ford and Phyllis Thaxter are both incredible as Jonathan and Martha Kent, and I appreciate the fact that when they come to Clark's high school years, they make the bully--Brad--seem just mean enough to convey that he doesn't like Clark, without turning him into some kind of caricature. Ford's death scene is quite moving, and it just sublimates the audience before the green crystal beckons him to the North Pole where he tosses it into the snow and creates the Fortress of Solitude.
 |
| © 1978 Warner Bros |
 |
| From left: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Jackie Cooper © 1978 |
 |
| Gene Hackman as a very hammy, wig-boasting Lex Luthor Not pictured: his bumbling sidekick Otis and busty moll Miss Tessmacher. © 1978 Warner Bros |
This remains a very controversial choice for the film. The movie was marketed as a step away from the Batman TV series of the '60s, and yet, Lex would be right at home on the series. Why? Well, my theory is that while they saw the value in a more serious, expensive superhero epic, there was still a market for that show, and they wanted something to meet those expectations. Makes sense, but I don't know if it should have been the main villain.
 |
| Just as an aside: I actually think she looks pretty good here. © 1978 Warner Bros |
Now, once Lex manages to get Superman's attention and he goes after the missiles, the film picks up again. It feels like an action film. Not in the sense that most superhero films are--with a major battle between hero and villain--but more like Top Gun or Backdraft where something else drives the action.
Like many special effects film, the effects start to get more sloppy toward the end. This is true even today. Nevertheless, there are a lot of great special effects shots and Reeve sells it with his earnest performance.
Finally, there's the ever-controversial ending, which I criticize on the grounds that the film never set up the fact that Superman could travel through time. True, Marlon Brando did use the phrase, "it is forbidden for you to interfere with human history," but that could mean any number of things. I do want to address a certain misconception: that Superman turns the Earth backward to travel through time. Actually, he's just spinning and in one insert shot, you can clearly see his fists balled, rather than actually pushing the Earth back, and the reason the Earth rotates backwards is because the film is simply following Superman through time.
 |
| Christopher Reeve as Superman in the exciting climax. © 1978 Warner Bros |
The film was part of a movement. Along with Star Wars, Alien, and Star Trek: the Motion Picture, Superman presented a film whose subject matter may have, at one point, been relegated to a cheap b-movie. These films were larger than life, ambitious and they got people talking. To studios, the most important thing was that they were highly profitable and it was easy to market merchandise: something at which Superman lent himself all too well during the dawn of the eighties.
Oddly, the film's imitators did not come in the form of other superhero films. Yes, there was a Supergirl movie, and if you count Swamp Thing as a superhero, he had one; but D.C.'s major stable had a long way to wait. A Batman film was in its early stages, but would not see the light of day until the summer of 1989. Meanwhile, at Marvel, their heroes had mixed results, with The Incredible Hulk being the biggest success on that front.
Finally, the film brought Superman himself back. While the comics had the occasional milestone for the character, the industry as a whole was in a slump, and D.C. was far behind Marvel in terms of sales. Meanwhile, the T.V. series was still airing in reruns, but it was surely showing its age, while in animation, gone were the mighty Fleisher cartoons, and in their place was the über-cheesy Super Friends.
Richard Donner's 1978 masterpiece brought the character back into the limelight. It put Superman on everyone's minds and proved that films could make you believe a man could fly. In a few short years, a sequel continued this trend, and cemented Superman's place as an early-'80s action hero.
I just wish I could understand why.
Superman II (1980)
Oh, that I could say that this was a great film. After-all, it was the first superhero film to showcase a gigantic battle as its climax and the first superhero blockbuster sequel, being the #3 film of 1981*. A taproot to films such as Batman Returns, X2, Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight and a contemporary of great sequels like The Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Kahn. Unfortunately, this film really, really... blows.
I know that's harsh, but what do you want me to say? The film just isn't very good, and the reason lies in the fact that it was initially filmed along with the first movie, with Richard Donner at the helm. When the film was about 80% finished, cooler heads prevailed and the production turned its focus to the first movie so it could be completed by Christmas of '78. When the first film was released, it was an enormous hit, but Donner was fired from the film after mouthing off about the producers with whom he had a fractious relationship.
Enter Richard Lester, who was best known for the Beatles films A Hard Day's Night and Help! Lester, obviously, had a much different style from Donner and was required to reshoot much of the ground Donner had covered (or come up with new scenes) and by the time the film was finished, what resulted was a patchy film without the sense of rhythm and color of the first movie, and with some of the biggest plot holes ever to be seen in a major film. Mind you: this movie wasn't some old serial, but a film that stood its ground against the summer '81 onslaught of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The film starts with a recap of the first movie. This is one of those things that sequels do sometimes, and it may have seemed more necessary at this point, but future Superman films eschew this convention. When the film catches up with us, we find Clark Kent going to work on a typical day only to find out that Lois has been taken hostage by terrorists at the Eiffel Tower. He then heads to the back ally, changes into his costume with an incredibly cheesy effect, and flies off to Paris.
 |
| © 1980 Warner Bros. |
Meanwhile, Lex Luthor escapes from prison in a comical fashion, leaving Otis behind, and takes a hot air balloon (!?!?!?!) to the Fortress of Solitude. I should point out that the "fortress" in this film is hardly a "fortress," and more of an icy palace with crystals, so Lex and Miss Tessmacher simply waltz in.
While Lex is busy learning about life on Krypton, Lois and Clark are assigned to an investigation into hotel fraud and pose as newlyweds. Lame. Lois becomes more and more aggressive about trying to prove that Clark and Superman are one-and-the-same and after he saves a boy from falling into Niagara Falls, attempts a similar stunt to draw him out. He instead uses his heat vision to burn a branch off of a tree for her to grab onto and saves her without drawing suspicion to himself.
Now, in spite of the cheese factor, so far all of this has the makings of a good Superman film. A larger than life threat while there's drama in the love triangle. What follows is, perhaps, one of the stupidest hours of Superman's history and of blockbuster cinema.
 |
| © 1980 Warner Bros. |
Unfortunately, even as unbeknownst to Superman, General Zod and the others are attacking a small town, Superman consults the crystal of his late mother Lara to ask for her blessing in this relationship he's been in for about a half an hour. She says that he must choose between his powers and a relationship with Lois. Now, here's where I'm gonna toss the snark on the floor and just go for indignation: the fact that he just hunches his shoulders after a moment's thought and says, "I lover her," then proceeds to give up his powers in the molecule chamber is a complete insult to my intelligence. Even if we're to accept the premise that he must give up his powers to be with her (and this was about a decade before they were engaged in the comics, though the Superman of Earth-2 had been married to Lois for quite some time) the fact that he does it so impulsively and, as one writer said, casually is just idiotic!
 |
| The three villains from Krypton are the best thing about Superman II. © 1980 Warner Bros. |
Oh, and did I mention that Lara says, repeatedly, that if he goes into the molecule chamber, he can never get his powers back? Well, she does. NEVER!!! Not, "until you change your mind," but never! This, of course, takes place while General Zod takes over the White House as Superman and Lois play house.
Now, if you can believe it, the film gets even dumber. Even though the Fortress of Solitude is supposed to be somewhere in the North Pole, Clark and Lois are able to drive to a diner located in, I don't know, let's say Canada. It's still beyond a stretch, but no way they got all the way to the U.S. Clark gets his ass kicked by a local bully in typical "he sucks without his powers," style, and he learns what audiences already knew: that General Zod had basically taken over the world.
At around this point, Luthor lets General Zod know that Superman is still a force to be reckoned with and that they might know his old man, Jor-El. As the three villains thrill to the notion of killing the son of their jailor, Superman trudges back to the Fortress on foot. Yes, he's actually able to get there on foot without his powers, and here's where the film goes from lousy to inexcusable.
 |
| I'm just putting this poster here, cuz it's cool. © 1980 Warner Bros. |
Now, some people will say, "oh no, there's one of those green crystals lying in the ice," but come on! That doesn't tell us anything except, "it has something to do with the magic crystal stuff this film thrust upon the mythos. How does he get his powers back? Especially since Lara said he "never" could. Now, to bring up the 2006 Richard Donner cut of the film, yes, there's a scene in which Jor-El tells our hero that he has fulfilled some prophecy and that in this moment, he gets his abilities back. Okay, so they graduated from a plot-hole to a cop-out; but the film still lies to us saying he can't get them back. Regardless, we're not talking about the Donner cut, we're talking about plain old vanilla Superman II and we don't even get that.
Podcaster and Facebook friend Trentus Magnus put it best, I think, when he said that this film and its predecessor are full of moments that, if they were in Smallville or Man of Steel would be crucified by fans and critics alike (I can't remember how he phrased it, but check out his podcast Trentus Magnus Punches Reality) and this is the perfect example. How can they possibly justify this lapse in narrative common sense?
So yeah, he gets his powers back, flies to Metropolis and confronts Zod n' co. who want revenge on him because, you know, his father sent them to the Phantom Zone. What follows is a sequence that I frankly don't know how to judge. I still feel it lacks a certain sense of urgency that a good fight scene should have. Even the '50s TV show had fights that were at-least well-choreographed, and while they aren't exactly blood-pumping, some of them hold up okay because there's more energy.
 |
| A still from the action-packed climax of Superman II. © 1980 Warner Bros. Entertainment |
Now, as usual, I'm about to give away the ending, but I'd like to reassert that I'm giving an analysis of these films, not just a review. I've said above that this isn't about reccomending these films, and I'm assuming that my notes will have little impact on whether or not you see the movies in question, so here comes my description of the ending.
Superman flies of mid-battle in what he hopes looks like a retreat, but is really a gambit to lure them back to the Fortress of Solitude. Let's give them some credit for this, I mean, he is using his head instead of just knocking them out; but still: what if his plan hadn't worked? Would he really just let everybody in Metropolis suffer the wrath of Zod?
 |
| © 1980 Warner Bros. |
But, oh, our hero doesn't go down that easily. See, he somehow managed to make it so that the molecules are switched throughout the fortress and thus robs the villains of their powers while he's safely inside the chamber. He crushes Zod's hand and tosses him into a deep, yawning chasm in the Fortress. Non follows and Lois punches Ursa down into the pit and the two romantic leads plus the comical villain of Lex head back to Metropolis.
 |
| Um... © 1980 Warner Bros. |
What happens next is the cherry on the ridiculous sundae. Lois and Clark have a heart-to-heart about how tragic it is that the two of them must be apart. You know, because now he has his powers back and his mother's holographic ghost basically just ordered him not to date anyone unless he gives them up. So what does our hero do? He kisses her, which makes her forget about everything since the beginning of the movie.
Yes, folks: another power that Superman exhibited by-and-by in the comics, but he never used throughout the exposition phase of the movie, so it's just a deus-ex-machina. But hey: that's what these movies are all about by this point. Superman's enemies exhibit powers unseen in the previous films and, really, in the comics. There's also what I believe to be gadgetry in the Fortress of Solitude, including a holograph device (though one hologram is made of stone or something) and a giant cellophane \S/ that is apparently sturdy enough to take down Non: the biggest of the three villains.
What's more: don't you think that he and Lois should sort out their little problem like adults? Now, it may break Lois' heart that she'll never be with the man she loves (because a hologram of his dead mother said she couldn't) but people have their hearts broken all the time in real-life. They can't just see where things go? Plus, they had a sexual encounter (you know, because Superman's the big admirable boy scout, so he bangs Lois after being "with" her for, like, three hours) and making her forget that has unfortunate implications highlighted in Superman Returns. One day I'll skewer that film.
Again: I want to like this film. I want this to be a film I can watch over and over again. I want to say that it's an exciting, well-written film that paved the way for the kinds of superhero sequels I mentioned. I want this to be the film I can show people who think the character's just this boring non-entity. But I just can't!
The biggest problem is that the film has one colossal flaw--the plot hole of how they never show him getting his powers back--but it also has a myriad of little problems, as well as overall flaws like the lackluster style, the tedious pacing and the over reliance on gags--something we can thank both Donner and Lester for.
Superman II falls more in the category of sequels like License to Kill where critical response seems to come more from the idea of moving the series into a new direction rather than the real execution of the piece.
 |
| © 1980 Warner Bros. |
Superman III (1983)
This is my "guilty pleasure" Superman movie. Where Superman II is hailed in some circles as a great film, this film is almost universally derided, and yet, I enjoy it. Yeah, that's right: I like it, despite being overly comedic and having villains that make Hackman's Luthor look downright awesome. I'm not saying anyone else who sees it will enjoy it. I'm just saying I do.
Now, you may wonder how I can defend the Superman film that's flat-out comedy when I deride the humor in the first two films. Well, my response is basically that in those films, it just doesn't fit. With Superman III, we start with a slapstick number, and you either like it or you don't, but it sets the tone for the rest of the picture. The nine-year-old me laughed, and I never really had a reason to stop laughing.
It seemed moviegoers did, however. The film placed at #12 of the year. The same slot a certain Batman film with similar problems would inhabit fourteen years later. And really, the film had a lot of competition. Previous Superman films had avoided direct competition with Star Wars films, but this time, it was released in the same summer as Return of the Jedi which was the year's biggest film. There was also the 007 war with Octopussy, the thirteenth official James Bond film paired off against Never Say Never Again, an independently-produced James Bond film (which Warners distributed) that brought Sean Connery back to the role. Add in favorites like Terms of Endearment, Flashdance, War Games, Risky Business and Mr. Mom and Superman III just had too much competition to overcome. Still, the film did manage to beat the later Bond picture, as well as Jaws 3-D and respected films like Scarface and Silkwood.
 |
| For some stupid reason, they started doing caricature paintings for the posters. Never good, especially for eighties films. © 1983, 2001 Warner Bros. |
So what's the story?
Well, we meet a down-on-his-luck huckster named Guss Goorman, played by Richard Pryor. Goorman comes to work for billionare Ross Webster and discovers that there are a lot of fractions of cents floating around that have never been claimed by either the employees or the companies. Goorman "steals" them, and Webster finds out. Because Goorman doesn't want to go to prison, he agrees to hack into the Vulcan satellite and cause weather problems in Columbia.
Meanwhile, Clark pitches a story about returning to Smallville after becoming a big-time newsman. En route to Smallville, he stops a fire at a chemical plant which was threatening to engulf some acid that, when it becomes hot enough, will eat through anything at all.
Once Clark gets to Smallville, we get reunited with Lana at the high school reunion. Now, one thing that's awesome about this is that they're playing the Beatles' version of "Roll Over Beethoven." Growing up, my two passions were Superman and the Beatles, so the marriage of the two things is stellar. As well, Annette O'Toole is perfect as the kinder, gentler alternative to Lois. As most hardcore fans know, she later played Martha Kent on the TV series Smallville and has come out saying that she did grow up reading the comic books. It's also important to note that in this film, Lana is a recently-divorced single mother of an athletically-challenged boy named Ricky. While this is an invention of the film, I think Ricky did carry over into the comics for a brief period.
 |
| EVIL SUPERMAN!!! © 1983 Warner Bros. |
Posing as a grateful army general, Goorman hands Superman the chunk of kryptonite and it doesn't seem to have any effect. We learn, however, that it has effected Superman mentally and he starts to turn evil.
Now… saying that Superman turns evil is a bit of a misnomer. Actually, he just turns into kind-of an asshole, at-least until he's seduced by Webster's girlfriend into destroying a sea vessel for its oil content, after-which he has his way with her.
How does this all come to an end? Well, in keeping with the tradition of random bullshit, Superman eventually just splits in two. The "good" Superman is embodied in the form of Clark Kent, which has some interesting implications. Anyway, there's a classic fight scene in a junkyard while it doesn't have the scope of the Times Square battle Superman II boasts, it's still well-done for the time and a classic "hero vs himself" fight.
 |
| Superman Vs Superman © 1983 Warner Bros. |
The climax of the film takes place in the secret lair of the evildoers with Goorman's giant computer. Superman flies into it and they launch missiles at him. This makes for a pretty good action scene, but what's weird is that Webster controls the missiles using a video game, which is cool, but some people seem to think the game actually exists.
Whatever, he and battles the computer, and Webster's sister turns into a cyborg. Yeah. I'm gonna give away the ending that while the computer can anticipate any attack and create an appropriate counter-attack, Superman grabs some of the acid from the chemical plant, and the computer registers it as harmless. Superman pours it on, then ignites it with his heat vision, which destroys the computer.
The film has some clever moments, such as the part where Superman freezes a lake and carries it over to the chemical plant fire, and when Ricky is bowling and Clark fakes a sneeze to propel Ricky's ball to get a strike. It's just kind-of sad that the film gave us such underwhelming villains (though they were cast pretty well with Robert Vaughn's character being a decent stand-in for Lex) and to go into a comedic direction.
It's also interesting to note that the film kind-of turns its back on the idea that the hero can't have a love-interest as long as he has his powers, as Lana falls in love with Clark, whose a bit more of a developed character this time. I also liked Paul Keathler as Ricky, as saccharine as he may be.
The previous year's Blade Runner and subsequent year's The Terminator cemented a darker and edgier route for action-oriented science fiction even if they weren't among the top films of their respective years of release. 1984's Ghostbusters and 1985's Back to the Future proved that there was a place for Superman III's blend of humor and sublimation in sci-fi/fantasy film; as long as they had intelligent and heartfelt scripts to back it up.
While Superman IV would eschew the comedy of III, it tried for more of a thinking man's quality… and failed miserably.
Superman IV: the Quest for Peace (1987)
I'm gonna take a different approach with this one. Superman IV: the Quest for Peace has been absolutely ravaged for over a quarter-century because, as its star Jon Cryer once said to an interviewer, "they did not finish it." The special effects are lackluster at best, the film is filled with plot holes and even the opening credits scream "cheapo." Here… just watch.
The little "Superman IV" on the bottom doesn't help either. In the '80s, that was something of a sign of a crappy production, and this film was produced by Canon films. Why was it produced by Canon films? Well, as discussed, Warner Bros. had actually licensed the films out to the Salkinds and their partner Spengler, and after the disappointing Superman III and the flop Supergirl, he decided to let this company--known for low-budget, forgettable films--roll the dice.
Obviously this is a recipe for disaster, but what could have worked--albiet, in a preachy, anvilicious way--was the idea of Superman taking on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Imagine what could have been if Warner Bros had produced the film themselves, hired a bigger action director (and no, I'm not bashing Sidney J. Furie) and spent the $40-million they had given to Canon (which they seem to have basically embezzled) using Reeve's concept as a basis, and spent another year on the project to release it in time for the character's 50th anniversary.
There's still an argument to be made that it wouldn't have been enough. In the years between 1984 and 1987, there had been a lot of changes in the action film market and the sci-fi/fantasy market.
The film starts with Superman rescuing a Soviet space crew after something goes wrong. Right away we can see how lackluster the flying sequences are. It's an interesting commentary on improving American/Soviet relations in the late 1980s.
We then catch up to Clark Kent on the farm. After some business with a green crystal and information that the energy from Krypton will soon be depleted or something, in one of the film's more touching scenes, we see that Clark refuses to sell the farm to a developer who has known him all his life, and laughs about how Jonathan Kent "joked" that Clark must have destroyed his bassinet after a bad dream.
Clark heads back to Metropolis and has to stop a commuter train after the driver has passed out. Interestingly, he seems to be stopping it with telekinesis, as if the filmmakers were trying to give Superman an arc involving the power Zod demonstrated in Superman II which isn't one of Superman's standard ability. While I prefer Superman stay at the typical power level (strength, speed, flight, the vision powers, even super breath), it is interesting that they're trying to build on this.
Now, of course Lex Luthor has been in prison since the events of Superman II and we find the evil genius cracking rocks, when his nephew Lenny shows up in this car that… eh, I'll spare you the details, he breaks Lex out of prison.
Lenny is another comic relief character like Otis. As with many attempts to modernize something, it ends up being more dated, but it's cool since he's Jon Cryer.
They steal a strand of Superman's hair from a museum, because they wish to clone him and here's another lapse in logic that doesn't really bother me, but should: if the strand is so strong that it's able to hold a weight like we see there, then why are Luthor & nephew able to cut it?
Okay, who cares? Anyway, the Daily Planet's been bought by a corporate asshole with a hot daughter who falls for Clark. Her name is Lacy Warfield, and she's played by Mariel Hemmingway from Woody Allen's Manhattan. She actually kind-of mirrors a character from the comics named Kat Grant in that they both fall for Clark and think Superman is kind-of just an overrated big boy scout. Incidentally, Lana Lang is nowhere to be seen in this movie.
So then, a little kid writes a letter to Superman asking him to rid the world of nuclear weapons. After a cheap stunt by the new Planet which is under the control of the slimy corporate Warfield guy, Superman reassures the world that he plans to get rid of nuclear weapons.
What better time for Lex to get in on the arms deal, right? Well, the thing is not only does he begin trading arms, but he takes the hair he collected along with some other stuff and attaches it to a rocket that shoots into space. And yes, people, he mentions an expanding piece of fabric to "maintain the high moral standard," meaning the film actually does explain how come Nuclear Man has clothes when he's first created. At this point, I'm not asking for an explanation that makes sense, just one that exists and this film does it.
They unleash Nuclear Man on Superman while he's attempting a double-date with Lois and Lacy as both Clark and Superman. It's a decent attempt at a comedy sequence, but even the writer has dismissed it as not being fast-paced enough, so be it. The fights between Superman and Nuclear Man could be awesome, but they're badly choreographed, though it is nice to see the bad guy win a round as Nuclear Man's attacks leave Superman rapidly aging and his cape falls off.
After another "it has something to do with the crystal" moment, Superman's back in action and somehow divines that Nuclear Man wants to kidnap Lacy which… yeah, another one of those things where the explanation was left on the cutting room floor.
They have a battle which takes the two all the way around the globe to China where Superman repairs the Great Wall with his… um… fix-o-vision. Yeah, then it's off to the moon and there's one shot where you can even see the wires if you look closely enough.
Eventually, Superman kills Nuclear Man by tossing him into a power plant, proving yet again, that people who admire this Superman because he never kills are full of shit.
Anyway, there are a lot of potholes in the end of the film, some of which are explained by the deleted scenes on the DVD, but again, those are deleted scenes and don't mean shit. While I can give the creators a break in-and-of themselves, this movie is still an incoherent mess. I actually do sometimes watch it just for the sake of having something on, but make no mistake: it's not a good film.
The movie did very poorly at the box office. While Canon only spent $17 million on it, the film made just $15 million at the box office in a year wherein the top film was Three Men and a Baby, Donner made a triumphant return with the first of his Lethal Weapon movies, favorites like The Lost Boys, Wall Street and Robocop were released, a new James Bond took over with The Living Daylights and even Canon's other cash-grab Masters of the Universe beat Superman. Even Jaws: the Revenge did better.
After the failure of Superman IV, the character's popularity seemed to crash. This came at an unfortunate time, as the comic books had just been rebooted to mixed fan reaction. I think sales increased at-least for a couple of years. 1988's Superboy, meanwhile, had an inauspicious debut to say the least. However, both the comic books and the college-bound TV series were working hard to amass a loyal following. Superboy was canceled in 1992, and it seemed like the end. But by the following year, Superman's popularity hit another resurgence thanks to this…
…and this…
…and this.
Oh, and in case anyone feels like getting on my case, no, I'm not claiming Dean Cain was better than Christopher Reeve, nor do I want to discuss their respective politics, acting chops, etc.; but what I will say is that I think both actors (and their supporting casts for that matter) just deserved better. But in any case, while Lois & Clark: the New Adventures of Superman was by no means the cultural touchstone Superman I & II were, it seemed to have solid ratings and did help keep him in the limelight.
The character's popularity has hit its highs and lows since then, but I think that the most obvious lesson to be learned here is that Superman is like anything else: he's only as good or bad as the material, and the people behind it, if they truly believe in what they're doing.
* Superman II was released in 1980 in Europe. It would not be released in the United States until the summer of 1981.
I'm gonna take a different approach with this one. Superman IV: the Quest for Peace has been absolutely ravaged for over a quarter-century because, as its star Jon Cryer once said to an interviewer, "they did not finish it." The special effects are lackluster at best, the film is filled with plot holes and even the opening credits scream "cheapo." Here… just watch.
The little "Superman IV" on the bottom doesn't help either. In the '80s, that was something of a sign of a crappy production, and this film was produced by Canon films. Why was it produced by Canon films? Well, as discussed, Warner Bros. had actually licensed the films out to the Salkinds and their partner Spengler, and after the disappointing Superman III and the flop Supergirl, he decided to let this company--known for low-budget, forgettable films--roll the dice.
Obviously this is a recipe for disaster, but what could have worked--albiet, in a preachy, anvilicious way--was the idea of Superman taking on the issue of nuclear weapons.
 |
| Nuclear Man © 1987 Warner Bros. |
There's still an argument to be made that it wouldn't have been enough. In the years between 1984 and 1987, there had been a lot of changes in the action film market and the sci-fi/fantasy market.
The film starts with Superman rescuing a Soviet space crew after something goes wrong. Right away we can see how lackluster the flying sequences are. It's an interesting commentary on improving American/Soviet relations in the late 1980s.
We then catch up to Clark Kent on the farm. After some business with a green crystal and information that the energy from Krypton will soon be depleted or something, in one of the film's more touching scenes, we see that Clark refuses to sell the farm to a developer who has known him all his life, and laughs about how Jonathan Kent "joked" that Clark must have destroyed his bassinet after a bad dream.
Clark heads back to Metropolis and has to stop a commuter train after the driver has passed out. Interestingly, he seems to be stopping it with telekinesis, as if the filmmakers were trying to give Superman an arc involving the power Zod demonstrated in Superman II which isn't one of Superman's standard ability. While I prefer Superman stay at the typical power level (strength, speed, flight, the vision powers, even super breath), it is interesting that they're trying to build on this.
Now, of course Lex Luthor has been in prison since the events of Superman II and we find the evil genius cracking rocks, when his nephew Lenny shows up in this car that… eh, I'll spare you the details, he breaks Lex out of prison.
Lenny is another comic relief character like Otis. As with many attempts to modernize something, it ends up being more dated, but it's cool since he's Jon Cryer.
They steal a strand of Superman's hair from a museum, because they wish to clone him and here's another lapse in logic that doesn't really bother me, but should: if the strand is so strong that it's able to hold a weight like we see there, then why are Luthor & nephew able to cut it?
Okay, who cares? Anyway, the Daily Planet's been bought by a corporate asshole with a hot daughter who falls for Clark. Her name is Lacy Warfield, and she's played by Mariel Hemmingway from Woody Allen's Manhattan. She actually kind-of mirrors a character from the comics named Kat Grant in that they both fall for Clark and think Superman is kind-of just an overrated big boy scout. Incidentally, Lana Lang is nowhere to be seen in this movie.
So then, a little kid writes a letter to Superman asking him to rid the world of nuclear weapons. After a cheap stunt by the new Planet which is under the control of the slimy corporate Warfield guy, Superman reassures the world that he plans to get rid of nuclear weapons.
 |
| Jeremy spoke in class today. © 1987 Warner Bros. |
They unleash Nuclear Man on Superman while he's attempting a double-date with Lois and Lacy as both Clark and Superman. It's a decent attempt at a comedy sequence, but even the writer has dismissed it as not being fast-paced enough, so be it. The fights between Superman and Nuclear Man could be awesome, but they're badly choreographed, though it is nice to see the bad guy win a round as Nuclear Man's attacks leave Superman rapidly aging and his cape falls off.
After another "it has something to do with the crystal" moment, Superman's back in action and somehow divines that Nuclear Man wants to kidnap Lacy which… yeah, another one of those things where the explanation was left on the cutting room floor.
 |
| No comment. © 1987 Warner Bros. |
 |
| To those of you who claim Superman can expand his powers to people he touches. Yeah, whatever, kinda but not really, and even if the film's continuity had that contrivance, they should have set it up at some point before the climax © 1987 Warner Bros. |
Anyway, there are a lot of potholes in the end of the film, some of which are explained by the deleted scenes on the DVD, but again, those are deleted scenes and don't mean shit. While I can give the creators a break in-and-of themselves, this movie is still an incoherent mess. I actually do sometimes watch it just for the sake of having something on, but make no mistake: it's not a good film.
The movie did very poorly at the box office. While Canon only spent $17 million on it, the film made just $15 million at the box office in a year wherein the top film was Three Men and a Baby, Donner made a triumphant return with the first of his Lethal Weapon movies, favorites like The Lost Boys, Wall Street and Robocop were released, a new James Bond took over with The Living Daylights and even Canon's other cash-grab Masters of the Universe beat Superman. Even Jaws: the Revenge did better.
After the failure of Superman IV, the character's popularity seemed to crash. This came at an unfortunate time, as the comic books had just been rebooted to mixed fan reaction. I think sales increased at-least for a couple of years. 1988's Superboy, meanwhile, had an inauspicious debut to say the least. However, both the comic books and the college-bound TV series were working hard to amass a loyal following. Superboy was canceled in 1992, and it seemed like the end. But by the following year, Superman's popularity hit another resurgence thanks to this…
…and this…
…and this.
 |
| Meeting these two is on my bucket list. © 1993 Warner Bros. |
The character's popularity has hit its highs and lows since then, but I think that the most obvious lesson to be learned here is that Superman is like anything else: he's only as good or bad as the material, and the people behind it, if they truly believe in what they're doing.
* Superman II was released in 1980 in Europe. It would not be released in the United States until the summer of 1981.
No comments:
Post a Comment