Superman ... ZZZzzzzzzzz (1 Viewer)

[John Doran]

without making any claims about the technical merits of the film, i have to say that in terms of its capacity to engage me on an emotional level, donner's vision of superman is about as compelling as drying paint; i'd rather rewind blank tapes with a bic pen than have to endure it again.

plodding. miasmic.

ho-hum.

- jd

 

[Kevin M]

There was more to it than the spunky, brainy wise ass.

I never said there wasn't more to it than that, but the Lois I remember from the original Comics (I have an extensive book set that chronicles the first four decades) was very much about this sort of independent sassy "modern girl" thing and that is what stood out to me as I watched the screen tests. The Love factor was certainly there however.

 

[Ricardo C]

Am I the only one who thought Margot Kidder was also very very hot as Lois? :b

 

[Paul_Scott]

i thought MK looked great when she was photographed by Unsworth for the first film.

in the footage done w/ lester directing for the sequel, she looks awful.
bad hair, bad make-up, poorly attired.
Donner did a great job with her for the first film though.

i was also one of the people very suprised that Anne Archer (undeniabley a beautfiul woman) made such a poor Lois as well as all the other conventional pretty candidates.
I thought Channing was a hag when i saw her in Grease as a kid, but looking back at the screen tests, she would have been my second choice for Lois.
a little too hard, but much closer than any of the others sve for Kidder.

i'll be suprised if we ever see a better Lois Lane than the one Kidder embodied.
Prettier? sure, but i doubt the part will have half the life and charm Kidder gave it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

, i have to say that in terms of its capacity to engage me on an emotional level, donner's vision of superman is about as compelling as drying paint

My God. Brando's monologue, the long shot of Clark and Martha in the middle of the wheat field, the first shot of Superman flying, his agony and utter rage at the loss of Margo... this doesn't move you? IMO, there hasn't been an emotionally engaging superhero film since Superman.

 

[Joshua_Y]

I thought Ms. Kidder looked lovely and rather beautiful in Superman...

And just wanted to say that Superman is still one of my favorite movies just to look at...Geoffery Unsworth's photography is simply stunning and the model/minatures on Krypton look amazing...the flying...everything just looks goregous...he was a true genius!

 

[Rob Gardiner]

"All those things I can do . . . all those powers . . . and I couldn't even save him."

Brings a tear to my eye every time.

 

[JonZ]

I cant relate at all.

I think its a classic that deserves to be rated up there with some of the greatest films ever made.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Time Travel : This is fine, but he turns time back to just before Lois gets killed. Won't the aftershock still happen and won't he need to save the dam etc etc all over again? He just says hi to her and Jimmy then flies off to capture Luthor.

I rewathed the film recently, and thought that as well. Lois should have been buried alive again, but when Superman went back in time, she was just unharmed. I cannot for the life of me figure out an explanation to this problem. Can anyone out there illuminate this plot point.

And thanks to those who explained the "turning arth backward" thing. I never understood that before, but the "from Superman's point of view" makes sense.

As for me, there are things I do not like about Superman - Lex and Otto as comic relief, mostly. But it is an excellent film, especially the opening hour.

 

[John Doran]

IMO, there hasn't been an emotionally engaging superhero film since Superman.

of course, this sort of thing is entirely personal, but i'll go you one better and say that there's never been an emotionally engaging superhero movie, at all. period.

the problem for me is that all of the superhero movies made thus far have felt, well, like comic books. but bad comic books - poorly written, poorly drawn, poorly arranged and paced. they feel like caricatures. like poor imitations.

for me, and as i have observed in the X2 thread, what is conspicuously absent from all of the superhero films made thus far (as far as i am concerned) is the spectacle - the thing that makes these heroes super.

the one notable exception, for me, is the final sequence of spiderman, where he swings through the city; that scene is unbelievably powerful for me precisely because it is what i have waited to see ever since i thrilled to the old spiderman cartoon with the acid-trip backgrounds, and as long as i've been reading comics - i have been waiting to see the superheroes i love, to be ushered into the world where there are beings that can fly, and leap tall buildings in a single bound and go faster than a speeding bullet, you know?

but i recognize that you need more than spectacle to motivate a good movie; it's just that, as i say, the other human half of the equation just hasn't been there for me so far - not only do the superheroes not feel real, but none of the things that happen to them or anyone around them feels real, either. so i remain unmoved.

the only movies that have, for me, successfully portrayed a powerfully moving super-powered individual, are the matrix movies.

anyway. i'm rambling. please remember that everything i have said here is strictly a matter of personal preference, and i am certainly not saying that anyone else who has a different reaction to superhero movies is wrong...

- jd

 

[Darcy Hunter]

Put me down as another one who thought that Superman 2 was far superior when I was a child, but when I watched Superman: The Movie for the first time in years on DVD, I was transfixed. What an amazing film! The first half, all the way until Luthor's entrance, is probably the most beautifully realized superhero film ever put to celluloid. On the other hand, when I watched Superman 2 right after it, I was really let down, I mean when I saw this in the theater as a nine year old child, I was blown away! It was what I had wanted from the first film, great villains, and epic scenes of super-hero mass destruction. It's still a fine film, but it just hasn't aged very well to me.

My only (slight) complaint with the original, is with the slightly choppy resolution. Even as a kid, I felt a bit cheated by the climax (I can hear Brain Cox's character from Adaptation screaming "... AND GOD HELP YOU IF YOU USE A DEUS EX MACHINA!"), but not enough to dismiss all that came before it.

A true classic.

 

[ThomasC]

IMO...the films that have gotten the closest to Superman in terms of comic movies are:

Is Unbreakable based on a comic or was it all thought up by Shyamalan?

 

[TheLongshot]

Is Unbreakable based on a comic or was it all thought up by Shyamalan?

That was his baby. An excelent deconstruction of super hero myth. (Too bad it plays too slow...)

And John, while I understand what you are saying here, and in the other thread, the movie you want can't be made yet, and in the end would feel like fluff to me. Comics to me are all about the characters. Without it, it would just be a generic action film, and I've had enough of that crap.

Jason

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

the long shot of Clark and Martha in the middle of the wheat field

It's the part of Superman's youth that I enjoy in this film. All the standard action parts later on I can take or leave. I've never seen the sequels and don't really care to.

 

[Joshua_Y]

John...you say that you want spectacle in your superhero movies...well Superman is just about as big as you can get...the huge action sequences...beautiful effects...and an emotional core to go along with it...

Everytime I see Pa Kent die...it really gets me...and at the end when he couldnt save Lois...and he screams and flies away...powerful!

 

[Dharmesh C]

I rewathed the film recently, and thought that as well. Lois should have been buried alive again, but when Superman went back in time, she was just unharmed. I cannot for the life of me figure out an explanation to this problem. Can anyone out there illuminate this plot point.

When Superman goes back in time, he goes back far enough to stop the crack from appearing. The original Superman simply fades away from existance.

Of course, I love Superman The Movie, it has everything.

Check out my site.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I have always found it a bit slow, and since the deleted scenes add nothing of value to me, it definitely makes things worse. The fact that two of them (the first and last) are set-ups that have no payoff whatsoever makes me really question why they were included in the body of the film. I actually liked Otis, although I wish they had established a better reason for Luthor to keep him alive/hanging around.

The spinning the world backwards bit burst the whole movie like a balloon for me when I was 10, and it still does it now. The bad taste from that contrivance is probably 90% of why I liked the second film better when it came out.

Regards,

 

[Kevin M]

the one notable exception, for me, is the final sequence of spiderman, where he swings through the city

Funny that you should choose that scene as I felt it was the worst shot in the film, shoddy CGI motion match (decidedly PS2-ish in movement) IMO that took me right out of the moment.

 

[CoreyII]

To state the obvious everyone has an opinion. If someone doesn't like the original Superman, I can understand, afterall if we all agreed all the time this forum would be very boring.

Having said that I have and always will love the original Superman. And as I got older I found the first film to be better movie than Superman II. For all of you who always slam the scene where Superman brings Lois back to life, well I think that scene it works much better than the scene in film 2 when he kisses Lois and she forgets his secret identity.

Now I wll admit that Margot Kiddder isn't the best Lois Lane and her best performance as the character is in the original film. To me Teri Hatcher is the definitive Lois Lane so far.

As to the current state of Superman especially in light of more recent comic book based films I'll say this much the original film can still hold its own if not more against X-Men or Spider-Man.

Don't get me wrong I loved Spider-Man, I thought as an origin film for Spider-Man, it was just as good as the first Superman. You people must also remember that Spider-Man is an altogether different character than Superman so therefore his movie will be handled differently.

Personally Im not opposed to a new Superman film but from what I've been reading about how Warner Bros. is handling it (Josh Hartnett, come on now....) I don't think Richard Donner's classic is in any danger of being knocked off its perch. Oh and by the way, I don't care for Smallville to me that's not Superman, it's Dawson's Creek with super powers added to it.

 

[CoreyII]

Also, this CGI bashing is getting played out. I mean I know where this post is eventually heading if hasn't already, someone is going to ptich a fit about the Hulk being too fake.

Personally I don't have a problem with CGI, it's here to stay. As a matter of fact if it wasn't for CGI many of you wouldn't be getting all these film versions of your favorite comic book heroes.

I loved the ending of Spiderman when he was swinging through the city.

As far as the Hulk goes, I ask you, how else can you do the Hulk with the aid computers. I mean come on we're in the 21st century you can't spray paint a bodybuilder green, put a green Don King wig on his head and call that the Hulk, that just won't do.

Puppetry (like in the original Star Wars) won't work because you couldn't successfully duplicate The Hulk's movements.

Now I'll admit for some characters you don't need much if any CGI, like the upcoming Punisher movie or even with a new Superman film. I would probably prefer to see an actor on cables against a green scree as oppposed to a CGI Superman.