Superman: The Movie
1978, United States
Director: Richard Donner
Screenplay: Robert Benton, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Mario Puzo
Story: Puzo (Really? Puzo? I had no idea.)
As far as big Hollywood movies go, Superman does a number of things right. The opening scenes are effective at portraying a mystical world, with Marlon Brando’s Jor-El injecting the right amount of gravity. The special effects, both on Krypton and throughout the movie, are obviously far less impressive now…but they deserve credit for being outstanding in their day, as well as having an enduring sense of style about them. (If we aren’t all wearing hyper-reflective suits in pitch black rooms at some point in my lifetime, I’ll have to consider humanity a fine idea that sadly came up short when it really mattered.)
The movie is also elevated due to Christopher Reeve’s performance. He looks the part more than any comic book movie star, with the possible exceptions of Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine and Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne, both coming 20 years later. Like Brando, Reeve’s presence is perfect in his role – he’s easygoing, confident, somehow warm and slightly aloof at the same time. If Superman’s tagline is to be believed, Reeve deserves most of the credit. The script, too, does a good job with the character, poking fun at the comic book clichés and having fun with his powers.
What is more questionable to my modern tastes is the portrayal of Lex Luthor. I can’t say what Luthor was like in the comic books back in the 70s, but today the character is pretty well established as a bald, extremely intelligent multi-billionaire. In this film, Luthor instead carries on the tradition of the 1950s Batman villains – he’s a self-absorbed, slightly zany madman that surrounds himself with incompetents. In this more cynical age, it’s hard to buy into such a cartoony antagonist. We also lack the naïvité to believe that a nuclear warhead could be hijacked by simply blocking the road it was being transported on. I know, I know, it was never meant to be taken seriously, but what might have been amusing in 1978 is just lame in 2008. Finally, maybe I’m being unduly influenced by Gene Hackman’s French Connection role, but I just don’t understand the decision to cast him as Lex Luthor. Isn’t he a little too blue-collar to be a supervillain?
Style: 9
Then-cutting-edge special effects, a couple fine performances, and the magnificent Superman theme all add up to a classic comic book experience. Christopher Reeve really was Superman, even more than Sean Connery was James Bond.
Substance: 6
I love the opening scenes, and how Superman is handled in this movie…the writers clearly had a lot of fun with the character. Unfortunately there are extended sequences that have aged pretty poorly: most of the scenes with Clark Kent, Superman and Lois Lane flying through space (seriously, that’s just bizarre, right?) and all the bumbling done by Luthor and his cronies.
Overall: 7
If I was born 20 years earlier, I would probably be swearing to this day that Superman is the greatest movie ever made. I could just kinda see that happening. But while I’ll tip my cap to that unrealized possibility, I have to discount all the fun of Superman for its many campy moments.
October 2, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Superman the Movie has been the benchmark for comic book movies for years. While it may now be eclipsed by the likes of The Dark Knight, certainly, and perhaps Spider-man 2 before it, Superman remains one of the few comic book movies where they “got everything right.” Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor notwithstanding, it remains one of the best all-around casts for a comic book movie. As you have mentioned, Gene Hackman as Luthor, is a bit too “blue collar,”, and I do feel the same way, but you have to take into account both the comics at the time, as S:TM came out a full 8 years prior to Superman’s revamp in “The Man of Steel,” which reinvented Luthor as the billionaire CEO-type we know him as today, but at the time, Luthor was of the mad scientist/supervillain mold. Additonally, Gene Hackman in the 1970′s was one of the absolute TOP actors in his field, so to stack the deck of the cast with another Oscar-winner, aside from Brando, was a no-brainer.
While the film does at times seem campy, Richard Donner requested verisimilitude, which is why, aside from the occasional goofy moment, the movie takes the source material seriously. And Reeve is spot-on as Superman, not once winking at the camera, but playing it completely straight, as it should be.
S:TM also undertakes setting up a sequel, with the exile of the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone, which plays out well in Superman II, but even better in Donner’s cut, where one can imagine what could have been, had Donner not been fired. If you haven’t seen it yet, and you’re a fan of the first one, you should check it out.
October 3, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Superbly written review. I actually agree with the final rating entirely (giving Superman on the “Juan Scale” a 3.0).
October 5, 2008 at 10:52 am
I pretty much agree with Kyle. I would also like to point out that they wanted to make Supermanbe a PG movie. After all why would a Superman movie be anything than a family/kid friendly movie? That said they could only make the Luthor so menancing. Let’s also not forget he did destroy the entire west coast, killed Lois Lane (which I thought was scary as hell when I was 6), and got Superman really pissed; which is something that has not happened in any movie since.
I’ve always wondered if some of the campiness in terms of Luthor was also a parody of the popular Bond villians. I’ve recently saw Goldfinger, Dr. No, and You only live twice. I have to say the only difference I saw in their campiness and Hackman’s Luthor is the fact that they were trying to be serious in their portrayal while Hackman’s was tongue in cheek. Consequently, I think his performance holds up over time better than the rest.
That said I pretty much agree with your review but can overlook some of the flaws you justifiably pointed out.I would give it an 8 in the overall 9 scale. I knock off a point for the whole Lois internal monologue while flying with Superman. Whenever that scene begins I either skip that scene, or use it as my bathroom break.
October 5, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Great comments everyone. Kyle, you just taught me a new word (verisimilitude). I think you make a good point in citing Hackman’s reputation in 70s.
Amazing…the Nineflick and Juan scales finally agree! The Hellmouth will open up any day now.
I think the comparison to Bond villains is a good one, Acovio. There probably is some humor to be derived from a tongue-in-cheek supervillain that I didn’t fully appreciate in this viewing.
October 8, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Superman: The Movie is to Superman what the 1960s Batman TV show is to Batman: a farcical romp through the hero’s mythology that simply does not hold up well over time. I think you hit the nail on the head, J, when you said in your review, “In this more cynical age, it’s hard to buy into such a cartoony antagonist. We also lack the naïvité to believe that a nuclear warhead could be hijacked by simply blocking the road it was being transported on.”
The central plot of this movie is quite terrible: Lex Luthor is targeting the San Andreas fault with a missile so that California will separate from the continental United States causing heretofore worthless property in Nevada (that Luthor has purchased) to become “beach front property” which will then substantially increase in value.
I don’t even really have to point out that if this movie were being made today, it would be a colossal flop. Sadly, the most recent big screen venture into the Superman franchise — Superman Returns — more or less replicated the main plot of the first film with a still too-campy Luthor trying to pull off some incredibly far-fetched, revisionist 1950s comic book villain scheme.
That said, Christopher Reeve continues to deserve a lot of credit for these films. He remains to this day one of the all time greatest casting decisions in cinema, bringing an unparalleled sense of authenticity to the dual-role of Clark Kent and Superman.
This is far from Richard Donner’s best work, and the overall tone of the film has aged very poorly. Although, I will agree that some of the scenes are timelessly classic.
It’s really a shame that Earth’s greatest champion still doesn’t have an outstanding big-screen feature of his own while several of his contemporaries (notably Batman and Iron Man) have both found commercial success and artistic integrity at the box office.
October 10, 2008 at 2:08 pm
What’s really a shame is that given the huge critical and commercial response tp “The Dark Knight,” WB is going to make the next Superman movie, whether it is a sequel to “Superman Returns,” or a complete reboot, like “The Incredible Hulk,”a lot darker. This is a huge misstep. What works for Batman does not necessarily work for Supes. Batman is all about the dark, just as Superman is all about the light. It’s just like the two cities these heroes inhabit. They are the flip side of one another. Making the next Superman movie all “dark and angst-y” makes about as much sense as having MP5s and RPGs in “The Lord of the Rings.” While the next Superman movie should be realistic, again, as realistic as a movie about a god-like alien being who is the champion for truth, justice, and the American Way can be, it should also be noticably much lighter in tone and mood than “The Dark Knight.” And one of Big Blue’s cosmic foes (i.e. Brainiac, Darkseid, Mongul, or anyone…ANYONE other than Luthor again) as the main villain couldn’t hurt either.
October 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Some interesting points, Kyle. I wholly agree with your assessment of Superman v. Batman in terms of the tone that the two characters should attempt to strike.
However, I would point out that Superman has been done correctly in several other incarnations. Many of the episodes of the CW’s “Smallville” are very well done, as was the most recent Superman: The Animated series. So clearly it’s possible to use the character in a way that appeals to a wide audience without trashing the franchise, itself.
I would also note that several of the animated series attempts to cross over Superman and Batman have made for some of the very best episodes.
It is difficult to create a good story for a character who is basically invincible. But then, look at the Death of Superman comic and the subsequent aftermath in Funeral for a Friend and World Without a Superman. All very high quality story telling, and I have to believe there’s room there for several movies. (BTW – the animated movie adaptation of those comics is awful — don’t waste your time)
Of course, DC Comics and Warner Brothers could lend considerable aid to their cause by not letting Brian Singer direct again — easily one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood.
October 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm
DC/WB could use Kevin Smith’s “Superman Lives” script, or a version thereof, in lieu of once again rehashing the Superman storyline for a sequel to “Returns,”or reboot of the franchise. That script loosely adapted the whole death and rebirth storylines in a fairly uncomplicated way, had a great Superman/Clark & Lois dynamic, and loads of action, which “Returns” sorely lacked.
“Superman Returns” really painted itself into a corner with the introduction of Lois’s son. Really??!! All those years in development hell and THAT’s what you’re gonna do? The “Lives” script had easily some of the most large-scaled battles in any of the Superman series, with both Doomsday and Brainiac, that were at least on par with the 3-on-1 Kryptonian Battle Royale in Superman II, excellent character moments, and while it wasn’t perfect, it was easily more exciting than anything in Singer’s version.
As for “Smallville,” they’ve done more wrong then right in my opinion. Is that kid EVER gonna fly for good? What has he been in high school for, like SEVEN years? And enough with the “villain of the week” garbage – I got sick of it on “The X-Files” over a decade ago. The Superman cartoon was probably the best recent adaptation of the character overall, similar to what people had been saying about the Batman animated series, pre-Nolan. A nice mix of new storylines and a fair adhesion to the books, characters, etc.
And as far as Singer being overrated, well they could do a lot worse. While I’m no Bryan Singer apologist, at least it wasn’t Brett Ratner or goddamn McG, like was rumored. Look at how bad the third Singer-less X-Men was. Fox couldn’t have waited for Singer’s schedule to clear? Singer’s a much more competent director with a clear vision than those two hacks.
October 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Singer just isn’t a good director. He style is entirely too generic for my taste, and he panders to the myopic fan-boy crowd entirely too much while compromising aspects of the characters that shouldn’t be compromised.
With regard to Smallville, they were only in high school for the first three seasons. Clark subsequently attended college and now works at the Daily Planet. The show has really taken some very positive turns as they’ve introduced future JLA members Green Arrow, the Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman. The guy who plays Green Arrow/Oliver Queen is now a series regular. I keep waiting for Clark to meet Bruce Wayne…
October 13, 2008 at 9:12 am
I would concede that Singer’s style is not flashy or overt, but I wouldn’t say he necessarily panders to fan-boys any more so than many directors do nowadays. Would you say Favreau pandered to fan-boys when he premiered the Mk 1 Iron Man suit at 2007′s ComiCon with Downey in tow? Nothing against either of those directors, as I am a fan of both, but you could also accuse Zack Snyder of the same thing with “300″ and now “Watchmen.” It’s simply a way to get attention drawn to their films by their target demographics. It wasn’t 40-something housewives that made Iron Man or X-Men soar past $100 million at the box office by seeing it 10 times. And what aspects of which characters do you feel were compromised? I’m assuming you were insinuating the X-Men franchise.
As for “Smallville,” call me biased, but I’d rather not see compromised, tv versions of half the DC universe. If they’re gonna do a Flash movie, or Green Arrow show, fine, but don’t half-ass it with a barely recognizable version of the character. Of course this argument probably covers the X-Men discussion above.
I find it hilarious that this thread has generated way more response than any of the political threads.
October 13, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“I find it hilarious that this thread has generated way more response than any of the political threads.”
That’s because my no-spin-zone political threads are indisputable fact, whereas my movie reviews are more squishy opinion. And who generates controversy by simply reporting the facts? Plus this is (chiefly) a movie review blog, and I’m sure few people could give three flying farts about my political taste.
Is the same director that did 300 doing Watchmen? That sounds like a recipe for disappointment, particularly in light of Moore’s previous blockbusters like LXG.
October 13, 2008 at 8:57 pm
All the advance word on “Watchmen” has been nothing but positive, and it looks to be incredibly faithful to the (admittedly amazing) source material, a far cry from the cinematic abortion that was LXG – ugh, even the “hip” abbreviation is awful. You could tell from that trailer that the movie sucked ass, whereas the “Watchmen” trailer looks sweet as hell. Moore has had no involvement, direct or otherwise, for any of his books’ adaptations, From Hell, V For Vendetta, etc., and has repeatedly had his name removed from the credits of the movies due to his stance on movies based on his stuff. And no love for “300″? Oh well, that’s a pretty divisive film, and knowing your tastes I’m not too surprised. Any movies you are looking forward to, or are we still on about Superman?