I watched a back to back double bill of the two Superman movies last night (I don't count Superman's III & IV as worth watching, though to my pain I have seen both at least a couple times), in part because I love them and also because next summer sees the release of Superman Returns, which is a direct sequel to them. I am very much looking forward to director Bryan Singer's continuation of the storyline, from these movies, picking up the story 6 years later on.
The two films are essentially one, the second picking up directly from the first (hardly surprising since half of it was shot at the same time as the first film), with Superman having to deal with the trio of Kryptonian super villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non), who were jailed in the Phantom Zone at the beginning of the first film by his father Jor-El.
The first film in particular is pretty much the benchmark for how to adapt a comic book to the big screen, and for years no-one came close to it (though Tim Burtons flawed Batman and Batman Returns made a good effort). Thankfully, in the modern era we have directors and screenwriters who use it as a reference as to how to do it right, and we have had films like Batman Begins and Spiderman 1 & 2 as a result.
The casting is a bit hit and miss though, while the late Christopher Reeve absolutely nailed the part of Clark Kent and Superman (no easy task to pull off), I do not like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor one bit. Quite why the suppossed "Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time" as he describes himself, is surrounded with incompetents is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I like Gene Hackman, he's a great actor, he just doesn't convince me in the part. I am very hopeful though that Kevin Spacey will impress as Luthor, in the new film next summer.
Margot Kidder does okay as Lois Lane (though the chain smoking has never been a part of the character except here), and I actually like her song (Can You Read My Mind) when she is flying with Superman, which apparently many don't. Jackie Cooper though is superb as the Daily Planet's editor Perry White, a spot on portrayal of the character ("Now listen to me, I tell you boys and girls - whichever one of you gets it out... is going to wind up with the single most important interview since... God talked to Moses!"). Perfect.
The first movie is slow to get going, we don't actually see Superman in the costume until about an hour into the film, and not in action until later still, when he first appears in public to save Lois Lane and the Daily Planet helicopter. This allows for a good solid telling of his fantastic origin story, and is a trick now copied by the latest generation of superhero movies (especially Batman Begins). The plotline about Luthor's landgrab in California by using a Nuke to detonate the San Andreas fault line, rings true to the character pre-Crisis (a storyline in the comics during the mid 80's, in which the DC Universe was re-written from scratch, to make it more coherent. Before it Luthor was a renegade scientist and criminal, afterwards in the redesigned DC Universe, he was the head of the worlds largest mega-corporation Lexcorp. I personally prefer the later version of him, and I am somewhat dismayed, that the comics have recently made him again what he was pre-Crisis).
Freed of the need for a lengthy origin (though parts of the first movie are shown amongst the title credits, a trick copied by Spiderman 2), the second movie is my favourite of the two, giving Superman a real threat in the form of Terence Stamp's ruthless General Zod and his minions Ursa and Non, three villains each possessing powers to equal Superman's own, and without his regard for life and property. The battle between the four of them in the streets of Metropolis is brilliant to watch, a 12 minute tour de force, that looks impressive even compared to todays special effects laden blockbusters. Again, Lex Luthor fails to impress, his part feels tacked on here, and I think the film would likely have been better without him. While the love story is well written, the whole "You must live as a mortal" bit is just stupid. Quite why Superman goes along with it I don't know, as he has disobeyed his natural parents laws before (interfering with history in the first movie).
What annoys me about the second film though, are the liberties taken with the powers used by the Kryptonians, with numerous powers displayed that they should not have: Telekinesis, Force beams fired from their fingers, Teleportation (though it could be argued that this is simply them moving too fast to see), Illusion and Superman throwing an energy shield from the S on his chest over Non. Considering the vast array of powers at their disposal anyway (Flight, Super Speed, Strength, Invulnerability, Heat Vision, X-Ray Vision, Super Breath, Enhanced Hearing, Telescopic and Microscopic Vision, as well as the ability to hold their breath for a VERY long time), I feel that adding more was just bad scripting.
As one movie, these films get a solid 5/5 rating from me, individually they get 4/5 each. One thing is certain though, the current run of superhero movies has its good and bad films. It would have a lot fewer good films, without these movies as a guide to how to do it right. Superman returns to the big screen next summer, I can't wait!
No comments:
Post a Comment