Four Color Comics

comics for grown-ups

Four Color Comics header image 2

1978 Review of Superman: The Movie

June 28th, 2006 · by jdroth · 2 Comments

I posted a rant about how awful Superman: The Movie is over at the Marvel Masterworks forums. My opinion was not popular. “The first film is generally beloved,” wrote one poster.

Not.

Pauline Kael, the late, great film critic for The New Yorker, wasn’t too fond of the film, either. Check out some of these quotes:

“Superman,” one of the two or three most expensive movies ever made, and with the biggest event promotion yet, is a cheesy-looking film, with a John Williams “epic” score that transcends self-parody—cosmic fanfares keep coming when there’s nothing to celebrate.

“Superman” gives the impression of having been made in panic—in fear that “too much” imagination might endanger the film’s appeal to the literal-minded. With astronomic sums of money involved (though not in ways perceptible to viewers), the producers and the director, Richard Donner, must have been afraid even of style.

“Superman” [...] has no controlling vision; there’s so little consistency that each sequence might have had a different director and been color-processed in a different lab.

The narrative immediacy of comic strips is what has such a magical effect on kids. The plot is socked to them, with exclamation points. And we go to “Superman” hoping for that kind of disreputable energy. But it isn’t there, and you can feel the anticipatory elation in the theatre draining out. Donner doesn’t draw us in and hold on to us; we’re with him only in brief patches—a few seconds each. The plotting is so hit or miss that the movie never seems to get started.

The Superman who announces “I’m here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way” needs a little ribbing. But the film doesn’t bring any ambiguity into this portrait of an outsize F.B.I. man from space. It doesn’t risk new sources of comedy. It sticks to dumb jokes about spelling, and low-comedy scenes between Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), the criminal mastermind who makes his home under Grand Central Station, and his bungling helper (Ned Beatty), with Luthor’s floozy (Valerie Perrine) looking on. You can see that Hackman likes the idea of dressing up in what must be Liberace’s castoffs and playing a funny maniac, and when he has a halfway good line he scores his laugh. But he’s strenuously frivolous, like a guest villain on a late-sixties “Batman” show. Most of the time, he and Beatty are doing deliberately corny material—a kiddies’ version of the kind of burlesque routines that Roy Kinnear does in Richard Lester movies—and the director can’t seem to get the timing right.

Probably the moviemakers thought that the picture would sell on its special effects—Superman’s flying, and his rescues, and the disasters and cataclysms. The special effects are far from wizardly, though, and the editing often seems hurried and jerky just at the crucial moments.

In the early scenes on the planet Krypton, where the infant Superman lives, we’re acutely conscious of the lack of elegance in the design, because Krypton, which is supposed to be more advanced than Earth by thousands of years, has plastic-chandelier decor, like a Vegas lobby.

The conversation of the advanced beings on Krypton isn’t very stimulating, either. Mostly, it’s just the infant’s father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando), delivering ponderosities. Brando has begun to look like an Indian chief.

Instead of going directly from the child actor to Christopher Reeve and letting him play the eighteen-year-old Superman, the film introduces another actor (Jeff East), who doesn’t look like the little boy or like Reeve. This intermediate figure is very inexpressive, and something about him seems all wrong—is it just his pompadour, or is he wearing a false nose?

When Superman takes his beloved up for a joyride in the sky, the cutting works against the soaring romanticism that we’re meant to feel, and, with Lois reciting Leslie Bricusse lyrics to convey her poetic emotions, even the magic of two lovers flying hand in hand over New York City is banalized.

“Superman” doesn’t have enough conviction or courage to be solidly square and dumb; it keeps pushing smarmy big emotions at us—but half-heartedly. It has a sour, scared undertone. And you can’t help being aware that this is the sort of movie that increases the cynicism and sense of futility among actors.

What she said. And you know what? Superman: The Movie ain’t much better.

Tags: Uncategorized


2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Michael Rawdon // Jun 28, 2006 at 13:06

    Superman: The Movie was produced at an unfortunate point in time: The Batman (BIFF! POW!) television show (1966-68) was still the prevailing example of how Hollywood (and, probably, the public) thought superheroes “should” be done: Campy and corny. This would remain the case until Tim Burton’s first Batman film (1989) (although people tend to overlook that it, too, was rather campy). This explains why the Lex Luthor elements are so ridiculous: They’re simply high camp. Really, it’s a waste of Gene Hackman’s talents. Even the fact that there are many funny lines there doesn’t really save those aspects.

    The Krypton sequence is also a victim of it’s times. Sure, the film came out after Star Wars (1977), but keep in mind that it was probably well into production by the time Lucas’ film changed the industry. Indeed, those scenes might have already been shot. So where did they come from? At that point, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) typified science fiction in the media (and its reach was long, as both Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) were direct descendants of 2001), and that sort of clean, sterile, stiff aesthetic is mimicked in the Krypton we see in this film. Keep in mind that the comic book visual of Krypton had not really changed since the late 1940s, and it was solidly based in Flash Gordon visuals. While the later Flash Gordon film (1980) kept the coomic book visuals to a large degree, it was intended to be a pretty campy film itself.

    The extent to which the film works is almost entirely based on Christopher Reeve’s acting performance, and the enjoyable (I think) sequences where he first goes into action in Metropolis. Reeve portrays Superman and Clark Kent as substantially different people (as Peter David once said, Reeve finally convinces you that Superman can put on a pair of glasses and be someone else), and Superman comes across as a true hero, with more depth than the character had in the George Reeves TV series.

    Is Superman: The Movie a good film? For the most part, not. There are pieces I enjoy seeing over again, but it’s not as good as Superman II (which, though flawed, is largely a pretty decent film).

    But it’s easy to see why it turned out the way it did. In that sense, it’s an interesting piece of cinematic - and comic book - history.

  • 2 Joel // Jun 29, 2006 at 12:35

    Meh, I think your readiness to be persecuted is coloring your take on the various reactions in the forum. By and large everyone there (and here) agrees with your criticism, albeit preferably phrased in a softer, more respectful manner.

    Also, someone in there made an excellent point about Supes II being the best of the lot. The bit where the Krypto-criminals reshape Mt. Rushmore in their own images struck to the core of my young South Dakotan heart. “Kneel before Zod!”

Leave a Comment