|
Post by StevePulaski on Jun 13, 2013 18:00:06 GMT -5
Superman (1978) Directed by: Richard Donner
Rating: ★★★ Richard Donner's Superman is the closest thing I've seen to a big-budget, superhero art film in terms of aesthetics and storytelling (we're speaking of a stereotypical art film, of course). There is a big emphasis on scenery and location, long-stretches of the film are void of dialog, and several scenes are left to the audience to decide how to feel, rather than giving them a perfunctory emotion to explore. Now if there's anything I want to see it's a superhero film shot for less than $500,000 to open the next Sundance or South by Southwest Film Festival. But I digress. With the enormous commonality of superhero films in present-day 2013, no doubt has Donner's original classic been left in the dust. It's so easy and justifiable to view it as a corny piece of cinema, but one must respect its roots and its participation in the foundation of an incredible genre. There's something I never thought I'd call that particular body of cinema. And in its own right, Superman is an incredible movie. There's something sincere about being able to call a film made up almost entirely of effects "incredible." We begin by seeing Superman's biological father Jor-El on Krypton, a dying planet that is bound for uncertain turmoil. Desperate and worried about his infant son's potential being unfit for the planet, he sends him down to Earth in a pod that crash lands in an open field. The baby is discovered by an older couple that raise him under the name "Clark Kent." Clark would be a normal tyke if he wasn't so damn powerful, with his speed and super-strength. He grows up into an all American boy, drop-dead attractive and sophisticated, and works for the Daily Planet, a successful newspaper in the big city. He meets and grows fond of journalist Lois Lane, and tries to protect her in the face of crime and danger and Lex Luthor. Luthor is trying to destroy a large part of the west coast to greatly inflate the value of the desert real estate his company owns. Kent, who evolves into Superman, must become bold, brave, and smart enough to stop him in time. The special effects here are enthralling. The large-scale approach the film uses, even when the film isn't looking for a riveting spectacle sequence, is pleasant and rewarding in terms of payoff. Early on, the film relies heavily on scenes of the countryside, showing Clark Kent's adolescent roots. Shots capturing the indescribable, rural beauty of American farmland are terrifically and memorably captured. When the film ventures into the big-budget, groundbreaker it was meant to be from the get-go, it remains enticing for the most part. Occasionally, the film gets to be a bit slow and sometimes feels like it is trying to drag out its material to opus length (IE: the opening sequence on Krypton could've been cut in half). The film, also, has trouble trying to find a consistent tone, often running amok in the possibilities and situations it could throw its protagonist into. It's nice to see variety, but the cohesion isn't as strong as the content would suggest. Furthermore, it wasn't until the end of the film did I realize that the film robs Superman of a strong identity. This could very well be one of the perks of the neo-superhero genre. The character of Clark Kent is pretty empty and unremarkable when not in his shiny suit, and there is almost no emotional depth to him whatsoever. The film features a laundry-list of solid performances, most notably, Christopher Reeve's as a strong, rock-solid protagonist. Reeve pulls off Superman's charm with the intelligence and design his character needs to thrive and function. Supporting performances by Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and Margot Kidder as Lois Lane are enjoyable, and Marlon Brando's brief stint as Superman's biological father is utilized efficiently. Fortunately, the film zips along with zealous energy and its action sequences are favorable and generate priceless excitement. If anything, it takes even the most modern viewer back to the time when motion pictures seemed more wholesome and primitive. The time when everything had a discernible cheeriness and not all content had to be dark, heavy, and subversive to the point of alienation. Superman is enjoyable when seen through that and various other perspectives, and if you approach with the mind of whimsy and joyfulness, then there's almost no excuse why you shouldn't enjoy it. Starring: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando. Directed by: Richard Donner.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jul 21, 2013 23:00:34 GMT -5
Superman II (1980) Directed by: Richard LesterThe caped-do-gooder Superman returns in Superman II. Rating: ★★★ Superman II doesn't do a whole lot different from its predecessor, and to be honest, that's what I think I like the most about it. Often we see how far sequels can stray from their original material, sometimes getting cramped by ambition, strangled by not enough, or simply flounder because they just pail in comparison. Richard Donner's 1978 classic Superman was a fine film, nicely acted, very well shot, with great special effects to boot, and felt like it did justice to its title character. What more could you really ask for? Superman II brings much of the same material in terms of dialog, tone, pacing, and action, but has a different approach with its wit and focus. Director Richard Lester and the trio of writers - Mario Puzo, David Newman, and Leslie Newman - choose to make the film funnier, with more humor infused to the script. Just the first scene of the film, set in the offices of the "Daily Planet" newspaper with the boss talking to Clark Kent (whose role is reprised by the charming and drop-dead gorgeous Christopher Reeve) about how Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is off in Paris, France covering a hostage situation. The scene is breezy, carefree fun, and evokes everything the Superman franchise has been about thus far. The villains this time around are General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran), all of whom are hellbent on enslaving the earth for personal good and so-on. There plan of action comes right in the same time Clark wants to spend time with Lois, taking their relationship on a more romantic, personal level. Lois still doesn't know Clark is Superman, the notorious caped-figure that flies around and rescues people all over Metropolis, but she has a good idea. She is so certain that she throws herself in the rushing currents of Niagara Falls to see if she'll drown first or will Superman come get her. Humor like this keeps the film afloat. Lester and the writers are sure never to let the plot go too far off in the cynical world of cinematic drudgery, but it also is cautious of how much humor it uses to the point where it doesn't become a laugh riot. If anything, the filmmakers' approach lightens the mood a little bit, while recognizing there needs to be a certain functionality of humor and seriousness to the material to make it effective on a grand-scale. If there's one thing to nit-pick, it's that the plastic qualities of the original film still remain in place. I mentioned in my review of the first film that even though Reeve seems to be clearly trying here, he still comes off as stiff and kind of bland. This could be because the scrupulous character of Superman is inherently pretty bland, and his moralistic nature makes for seldom conflict on the internal level. However, the conflict we get between Clark Kent's lifeless ordinariness and his larger-than-life persona begins to kick in to great effect here. The agony illustrated at least remains interesting and quite believable. Superman II is a fun sequel, to say the least. The change of directors is pleasant and most everything that made the first film a worthy triumph is back here with full force. Even as current superhero films flood the box office almost monthly, with their dark and somewhat brooding nature, it's nice to see a good, wholesome affair that isn't bogged down by dreary repetition because of tone. NOTE: I've been researching the production history of Superman II and have discovered there exists a version of the film titled Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, which is Richard Donner's version of the film reconstructed from the ground up. Donner was the original director of the 1978 sequel, until Lester came in and effectively took over the project. I will review the Donner cut in due time. Starring: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran. Directed by: Richard Lester (and Richard Donner, although uncredited).
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jul 22, 2013 22:30:07 GMT -5
Superman III (1983) Directed by: Richard Lester Superman returns in Superman III. Rating: ★★ If there were ever a film to bleed early-eighties, cinematic camp it's, unfortunately, the third sequel to the original Superman franchise. It's no doubt certain pictures can pull off the aforementioned camp to great effect, but after two serious (well, somewhat straight-forward) films centered around the Man of Steel, here is the third installment, which can't even take itself seriously, leading to the audience not being able to take it seriously. What happened? Were the filmmakers shocked they got this far? If you were a die-hard fan of the first two Superman films, Superman III is at least something of a significant disappointment. Director Richard Lester returns using the one great thing him and the three writers brought to Superman II in extreme excess, which was providing light-hearted comedy and borderline satirical elements of the superhero genre. Here, his direction feels flatter than before and the Newmans, David and Leslie, write the film with a comedic tone that feels out of place. Most notably, the film features a watchable, but often half-baked performance by Richard Pryor who, despite enormous comedic talent and mainstream recognition, feels simultaneously overused and underused here. Overused in the regard that he seems to be the main star, where Superman is the supporting role in his own film, and underused because Pryor is never given much funny to do. He plays Gus Gorman, who goes from collecting unemployment checks to being a talented computer programmer, whose acts of embezzlement attract Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). Webster wants to hack the computers of the world and create a financial monopoly on the wealth. Or something like that. In the process, he wants to effectively transform Superman (role reprised by Christopher Reeve) from the caped-do-gooder he is known to be to an evil brute with no compassion or morality at all. On top of this, Lois Lane is away covering a story in Bermuda (actress Margot Kidder probably found better things to occupy her time with), and Clark Kent goes to his high school reunion alone, only to reconnect with Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole), an old friend. This is all well and good, but where is the sly wit from the third film's predecessor that was presented very conservatively in the trailers? Where is the agony that Kent experienced as living two completely different lives? Where are the touching scenes with Lois and Clark? Everything that made the first two films likable and functional is omitted and what we're left with is a film that feels tired and obligatory. There is no longer the excitement there was in the first two installments. While some parts felt as if they were plastic and kind of cheesy, this entire effort feels plastic and cheesy. And when you have a sequel to a Superman film headlined by Richard Pryor, that's the last thing the project should feel. Superman III, as a whole, simply doesn't work. There's too little energy, not enough drama to care about, too much emphasis on a campy personality, Ross Webster as an archetypal villain doesn't invite much suspense as a whole, and Reeve, once again, does his best, although he is trying to humanize a rather bland hero and the only thing he is given interesting to do is to show Superman's evil side when the time comes. If Richard Pryor would've pulled something like he did in See No Evil, Hear No Evil - perhaps that scene when him and Gene Wilder are pulling out their car from the river - we'd have a movie. Or, you know, if the title character wasn't practically a supporting character. Starring: Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Annette O'Toole, Annie Ross, Pamela Stephenson, and Margot Kidder. Directed by: Richard Lester.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jul 24, 2013 22:30:18 GMT -5
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Directed by: Sidney J. Furie Superman and "Nuclear Man" fight on what appears to be a truckload of moon-sand behind a gigantic black garbage bag passing off as the moon's atmosphere in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Rating: ★ Shall I recap Christopher Reeve's "Superman" franchise and the roller-coaster ride it was? It began with Superman in 1978, a strong, faithful adaptation of the comic book hero, bright and colorful, fun to watch, exciting in its action, and overall, a serviceable, genuinely entertaining piece of filmmaking. Its sequel was an equally strong film and, thanks to a refreshing but controversial change in directors, welcomed in a more satirical, comedic take on the comic-book character. It was fun and enchanting, if still accentuating the plastic kind-of qualities its predecessor had. By Superman III is when the character started taking a nosedive back to earth. The film lacked the great chemistry that was erected in the first two films, and focused predominately on a lame villain and an uninteresting character ironically played by the very interesting Richard Pryor. And now we have Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, a cinematic disgrace to the character in every regard that could've been prevented if something called source-material-respect was implemented. The production history of Superman IV is heavily noted, with a lot of it being revealed in Reeve's post-paralysis autobiography Still Me. Reeve's participation was made possible by a convincing deal, but even in his heart he knew it wasn't right. The film was made by Canon Films who, at the time, had thirty movies in productions. Superman IV wasn't treated any different than other winners the company had set for release at the time like American Ninja 2: The Confrontation and Death Wish 4: The Crackdown. Enormous budget slashing, extreme cutbacks in nearly every film department, and the lack of interest in making a film that would rebound the mediocre response to Superman III all lead to the dismal product that is Superman IV. You can almost see it in the cast's face that they have little enthusiasm for the material they're currently acting in. Even Reeve, whose face gleamed and personality erupted when he did his first big scene in the original film, has seemingly checked out of this franchise. Gene Hackman's return to the franchise, too, feels forced and looks as if he is totally uninteresting with what is happening, and additional talent from Margot Kidder, Jon Cryer, Sam Wanamaker, and the lovely, beautiful Mariel Hemingway is all wasted on a third-rate script. The plot involves the "Daily Planet" newspaper being bought out by a journalist tycoon who favors sensationalistic titles over real journalism, leading to Clark Kent and Lois Lane's (Margot Kidder) job to be more about catering to the narrow-minded and stretching the truth rather than about honest journalism. Lacy (Mariel Hemingway), the tycoon's daughter, also takes a liking to Clark and his kind ways, as she desperately tries to throw herself onto him at every conceivable opportunity. And if that's not enough, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) has returned, this time with his son Lenny (Jon Cryer). They are planning to create "Nuclear Man," a man to battle Superman since they have failed numerous times on their own to destroy him. With a larger budget and maybe a studio that took this material seriously and recognized they needed a colossal rebound after Superman III, these ideas could've worked just as well as in the first two films. But under the stiff, clearly rushed direction of Sidney J. Furie (who already had several films under his belt when this was released, so I'm sure circumstances and time constraints were mostly to blame) and the effortless special effects (again, likely caused by budget constraints), this is an incredibly paltry effort to revitalize a franchise. Not to mention, a trilogy is understandable, but a fourth movie after the third film already seemed that the end was nigh? This seems like an outright joke in itself. Even the subtitle for the film, "The Quest for Peace," leaves a person slightly confused. Wasn't that practically the ultimate goal in the last three films, whether it be peace and silence from Lex Luthor or Ross Webster's exhaustive computer hacking plan? Superman IV: A Quest for Peace is a rather disingenuous ending to a franchise many loved and many adored until lackluster decisions were made in the franchise's latter half. While the series had always maintained sort of this plastic quality I have been talking about, where characters do what is mostly expected of them and there's little deeper, below-the-surface mystery, the first two installments of the series were fun and quite exciting. What it evolved into was something no fan asked for and no fan deserve. I laugh at how one of the opening scenes in the offices of the "Daily Planet" show the journalistic tycoon implementing controlling policies and budget cuts to make his vision of the newspaper. Something tells me that's how the production of the film went, with the tycoon being Canon Films and the angry staff the cast. Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Jon Cryer, Sam Wanamaker, Margot Kidder, Mariel Hemingway, and Mark Pillow. Directed by: Sidney J. Furie.
|
|