Monday at the Movies - July 2, 2012

Welcome to Week Twenty-Four of “Monday at the Movies,” in which I tie up a few loose ends on movie series whose final installments haven’t been reviewed yet on this site.

Hulk (2003) – If I’m not yet on record as saying that Mark Ruffalo is the definitive Hulk actor, quote me on that because I’ve just rewatched Ang Lee’s Hulk, starring Eric Bana as the jade giant and don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.  For one, the plot is overfilled with antagonists with competing interests; consequently, none of them (save, maybe, Nick Nolte as Bruce Banner’s evil father) becomes terribly compelling – not Josh Lucas as a cutthroat corporate scientist, nor Sam Elliott as General “Thunderbolt” Ross.  What we do get is the curious directorial choice to drain the film of any positive emotion; all the characters are either broken or emotionless (or both), which allows some of the acting to walk the line between nuance and flatness.  Unfortunately, Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross is the worst offender here; at moments, her affection for Bruce is touching, but at others she looks like she’s staring at cue cards written in a foreign language.  But the film’s worst offense isn’t its emotional flatness or sense of bleak despair, but rather it tampers with Bruce Banner’s canonical origin in a way that fundamentally alters the character.  I can pardon the 2008 film’s link to the Captain America super-soldier serum as an exercise in world-building, but the connection to the father is purely imagined and ultimately unfulfilling since it never quite makes sense – especially at the end when a deus ex militia ends a major fight that, once again, is more about which can be out-angst the other than it is about superheroic adventuring.  I wanted to like this, but it fell flat and ranks below the Norton interpretation.  Long live Ruffalo.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) – It’s no secret to readers of this blog that I’m a huge fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and for my money the series goes four for four with this soft reboot, which finds Captains Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) in a quest to find the Fountain of Youth – or at least prevent the dread pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his shifty daughter Angelica (Penélope Cruz) from reaching it.  The film is instantly accessible, building a new world without relying on or scrapping entirely the preceding trilogy.  Instead, the series goes off in an exciting new direction, promising a healthy spirit of competition between Jack and Barbossa for future films.  One of the highlights of At World’s End was seeing Depp and Rush out-pirate each other, a plot element that recurs here to great success.  What’s more, personal favorite McShane is delightfully menacing, unequivocally embracing his character and reveling in his mischief; think of the unswerving evil and odd syntax Al Swearengen of Deadwood, but with an enormous smoldering beard and far fewer F-bombs.  And Cruz’s Angelica brings a fun new character to the franchise, carrying on impressive repartee and even occasionally matching Depp, who brings his A-game as always.  Indeed, if I have complaints, it’s that Hans Zimmer’s soundtrack is more recycled than original, and Judi Dench has far too small a cameo role as a royal lady wooed by Captain Jack.  Though it didn’t receive much critical love, On Stranger Tides is more than satisfying, and its box-office receipts thankfully made a fifth film (allegedly in the works) a viable prospect.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) – While the fourth Pirates film proved the franchise still had steam, Superman IV took a critical drubbing and continues to be hammered by superhero fans who regard its very name as shorthand for the worst in the genre.  But when I finally watched it this week, to my surprise there’s actually a lot in the film that works, making me wish that had been given a bigger budget and a better script editor.  Christopher Reeve is back for his last outing as the Man of Steel, facing Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor and evil clone Nuclear (“Nucular”) Man.  The film is incredibly brief, meaning that the story is overly compressed, with characterization shortchanged for protracted and uninspiring action pieces which often cut away from the action (the film’s only explosion happens off-screen).  The screenplay, too, is weak in places, with Superman manifesting bizarre new powers and breaking his own rules several times; the secondary villains, moguls who buy the Daily Planet, are overdrawn and poorly performed, and the filmmakers apparently forgot that humans can’t breathe in space.  But there’s a good amount of the film that does succeed; Reeve and Hackman in particular are fantastic (even if the latter is saddled with Jon Cryer for a sidekick), their performances feeding off each other and nailing the heart of their character’s relationship with expressive frowns and shrugs.  Additionally, Jackie Cooper gets a terrific character arc as Perry White, who refuses to compromise his values in the face of the changing landscape of journalism.  Though the script is excessively preachy about the woes of nuclear weaponry, I’m surprised to say that I enjoyed it more than I thought it would – at least, more than the unfortunate Superman III.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday at the Movies - May 28, 2012

Welcome to Week Twenty of “Monday at the Movies.”  On tap this week:  a few threequels, nostalgia, and Gary Cooper’s Cinema King debut.

The Godfather: Part III (1990) – Part III has become a kind of punchline, shorthand for the unnecessary and subpar sequel.  Even Francis Ford Coppola has tried to distance himself by labeling this merely an “epilogue.”  To be sure, Part III has its flaws – first, it is not the brilliance of The Godfather, nor does it enhance the original as Part II did.  Second, Robert Duvall is absent, courtesy of a contract dispute.  Third, Sofia Coppola as Michael’s daughter... well, you’ve heard all the jokes, and they’re all accurate.  But the film has its positives, too, often neglected in the dead faint to insult the film.  Seeing Michael make good on his promises to legitimize is satisfying, and Andy Garcia’s role as Vincent Mancini (the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone) ought to have been a star-making one, since his work is compelling and entertaining with a respectful dash of James Caan thrown in for appropriate measure.  I had said that Part II was a sequel to a film that didn’t need one, but Part III is a sequel – pardon, epilogue – that doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the franchise.  Al Pacino in particular, genius that he was in the earlier films, seems inconsistent; he’s more bluster a la Devil’s Advocate than the quiet man we last saw on the park bench at the end of Part II.  Where Talia Shire successfully navigates the interim to portray Connie as, at last, her father’s daughter, it’s difficult to see a more happy-go-lucky Michael with only glimpses of how tortured he ought to be.  Part III isn’t enjoyable in the way that the first two are, although it’s fun to see the way that it reflects and refracts its predecessors; we have a mass execution of the dons, a romantic confession in a kitchen, a trip to Italy, a passing of the torch complete with ring kissing, and Diane Keaton still left in the doorframe, but they mean different things here and serve as fun nods to those in the know.  Ultimately, the film concludes as every Godfather film ought to – a bloody settling of accounts – and Pacino all but redeems himself at the tragic opera finale.  Forget Fredo – it was you, Al; you broke my heart.  Required viewing, if only to conclude the saga, but there’s a reason it never stands shoulder to shoulder with its older, more sophisticated brothers.

Midnight in Paris (2011) – It surprises me that this is the first Woody Allen film I’ve reviewed on this blog, since I’ve practically lived the movie Annie Hall (right down to the awkward primary school education of a precocious bespectacled redhead) and love a whole host of his other films (especially Play It Again, Sam; The Purple Rose of Cairo; and Match Point).  And on the advice of so many of my colleagues who know literature like I do, I checked out Midnight in Paris on the strength of the premise:  Owen Wilson plays the stock Woody Allen character who roams the streets of Paris and slips through time into the 1920s to meet literary icons like F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom “Loki” Hiddleston), Ernest Hemingway (a spot-on Corey Stoll), and Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates).  Unfortunately, Midnight in Paris is a film that never quite lives up to its conceit; it’s a fantastic idea, don’t get me wrong, but it’s mismanaged and underutilized.  I’d much rather see a Hiddleston/Stoll buddy biopic of Fitzgerald and Hemingway than the Owen Wilson movie we get.  Premise aside, there’s not much original here:  Wilson plays the same Woody Allen character we’ve seen a million times, Rachel McAdams is Regina George, all grown up; Michael Sheen plays the cuckolding academic, another Allen-trope; and Wilson’s life-changing revelation is as plain as... well, the nose on his face.  The best parts of the movie are the scenes when the writers take center stage, but these moments are not frequent enough, and indeed not all of them work (although Adrien Brody as Salvador Dalí is quite entertaining); all told, Midnight in Paris is a bit like an episode of Saturday Night Live – a few good sketches worth rewatching but overall less than enjoyable.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) – The combination of Frank Capra and Gary Cooper is enough to get my butt in the seat.  I’ve long been nostalgic for the simpler world Capra’s films present, and I’ve made holiday traditions out of It’s a Wonderful Life and Arsenic and Old Lace.  And after High Noon and especially The Fountainhead, Gary Cooper can do no wrong in my eyes.  Here Cooper plays simple man Longfellow Deeds, an aspirant poet who inherits $20 million (upwards of $311 million today) and finds that all that glitters isn’t quite golden.  Like later Capra/Cooper joint Meet John Doe (1941), Deeds becomes the center of a media frenzy, courtesy of romantic interest and newspaper spy Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur).  In the final analysis, Mr. Deeds isn’t my favorite Capra film (Arsenic and Old Lace takes that cake, meaning I should probably get around to reviewing it on here).  There are parts that take a bit too long for anything to happen, and the slapstick comedy isn’t as prevalent here as I might have liked on a Sunday evening.  Moreover, almost all of the characters in the film are extremely unlikeable, even Bennett, who doesn’t atone for her sins until the very end of the picture.  Fortunately, though, Cooper is one of those actors who’s so charismatic that his hard work redeems many of a film’s flaws; his performance here is consistently and satisfactorily compelling, charmingly entertaining and touchingly empathetic.  To paraphrase former dean of American pop culture Tony Soprano, “Whatever happened to Gary Cooper?”

Superman III (1983) – First things first, this is not a Superman movie.  Unlike the two films that preceded it, Superman III doesn’t star Christopher Reeve as the Man of Steel, even though he finally gets top billing.  Rather, this is a Richard Pryor movie in which his character, Gus Gorman, attempts to pull one over on Superman by manipulating computers, weather satellites, and giant foam cowboy hats.  The greatest compliment I paid the RichardDonner cut of Superman II was that it excised a lot of Richard Lester’s slapstick inclinations; unfortunately, those inclinations are given full rein here, most egregiously in the moment when Pryor skis down the side of a skyscraper while wearing a pink tablecloth as a cape.  It’s a real shame, because there’s a great Superman movie in here somewhere.  Reeve is doing continually solid work as the Last Son of Krypton, especially when defective Kryptonite transforms him into a dark reflection of himself.  What’s more, his scenes opposite Annette O’Toole as former flame Lana Lang are a fulfilling fill-in for his relationship with the absent Lois Lane (a shame, since Margot Kidder’s portrayal is definitive).  But Lester’s priorities are clear; he’s more interested in Pryor’s twitchy brand of humor than in superheroics, more in the villains than in the film’s ostensible hero.  Worse, the villains on which the film focuses are nowhere near as interesting as the posthuman-converting computer, an apparent riff on the comics’ Brainiac; I’d much rather have seen Superman square off against an army of robot people than the would-be moguls herein.  When the chips are down, color me a Donner fan.  It’ll take a lot of work out of Zack Snyder next year to make me a true believer.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!  And stay tuned, because later this week I’ll be bringing you a full review of yet another threequel – this time, it’s Men In Black III!

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006)

The vote is in: I like Richard Donner's version better.

In several important ways, this will be less review and more analysis, comparative in a way that most every review on this blog is not. The film under inspection is Superman II, originally released in 1980 as directed by Richard Lester but re-released in 2006 as directed by Richard Donner. Having been fired from Superman II, Donner had already filmed most of his rendition of Superman II, initially intending both the first and the second films be shot simultaneously; after the studios vetoed this idea, Donner - with 75% or so of the sequel in the can already - halted his Superman II until 2006, when he finally edited his cut together.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is, in broad strokes, very similar to Lester's Superman II. The overall plot is the same: Superman (Christopher Reeve) fends off a Kryptonian criminal invasion led by General Zod (Terence Stamp) in alliance with Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) while dodging the suspicions of Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) that Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same. It's in the details that the two versions differ, and as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. I'm most pleased to say that all the things to which I objected in the Lester version are excised from Donner's cut, although Donner's version isn't entirely polished, leading to some distracting problems with the ending (which, inevitably, I'll have to spoil).

My aim here isn't to simply compare and contrast, to pick apart what's new and different between versions. Better reviewers than myself have had four years to do just that; for one, see DVD Verdict, who did a pretty good comparison job. Instead, my aim here is to look at the (in my eyes) most significant changes and whether or not they enrich the film. For starters, my favorite line - "Superman, thank God" - is untouched (and indeed plays out funnier, for reasons to be discussed below), so score one for Donner.

The Donner cut opens with Jor-El (Marlon Brando) sentencing Zod, Ursa, and Non to the Phantom Zone. This scene was added into the DVD version of Superman: The Movie, so it's nothing new in this reviewer's eyes; indeed, it's even a little distracting to see the same scene replayed again. But I fully understand and appreciate the Donner cut's aims in reinstating this scene: it clearly and finely restores Jor-El to the plot of Superman II, making more apparent the "son becomes the father" parallel I noted in the Lester cut. It also underscores a larger role for Jor-El to play, a role fulfilled by Superman's mother Lara (Susannah York) in the Lester cut in order to avoid paying Brando the exorbitant fees he commanded; bringing Jor-El back into the story creates a deeper connection with the first film and introduces a more compelling dynamic than the one with Lara. Donner leading Lester, 2-0.

I praised Lester's treatment of the growing dynamic between Clark and Lois, but Donner takes the advantage here for doing a better job with it. Donner's cut more subtly highlights Lois's growing suspicions, replacing the Parisian terrorist scene with a more successful scene at the Daily Planet, which introduces both Lois's cause for suspicion and the honeymoon racket expose; instead of throwing herself into Niagara Falls, Lois instead leaps from the Daily Planet offices. And instead of Clark clumsily tripping into the fireplace, Lois takes a more proactive approach, which would be criminal to spoil since it's undoubtedly the best "new" scene in the Donner cut. 3-0 now.

Donner's cut explains a lot of problematic plot holes in Lester's rendition, chief among them the connection between Lex Luthor and the Kryptonians, as well as the restoration of Superman's powers (which I thought was more a problem of audience members not interpreting correctly, but oh well). Here, when Lex breaks into the Fortress of Solitude with Miss Teschmacher, he's treated to a crystal projection of Jor-El explaining his role in Zod's imprisonment. By explaining the plot to Lex and by Hackman's perfect portrayal, it's apparent why Luthor feels he can reason with Zod & Co.; more importantly, this new scene explains how Lex knows that Superman is Kal-El, a fact that's not apparent in the Lester cut. Later, the restoration of Superman's powers is accomplished through a great scene between Brando and Reeve, who play off each other very well. It's a scene that cements Jor-El's compassion for his son, and the sad resignation on Brando's face is evidence enough for why Brando was considered one of the best actors of his generation. Donner's 4-love, for those playing the home game.

The greatest thing Richard Donner did for Superman II, however, is his judicious exorcism of all things slapstick from Lester's version of the story. Gone are the silly wind jokes during the battle for Metropolis; left by the wayside is the silly characterization of Non as an inept dullard with no grasp of his powers. Consequently the villains are entirely - finally - threatening, surrounded by only menace and dread, not the lurking suspicion that a gag is just around the corner. In Lester's cut, I got the idea that Zod was exasperated with the fact that he was the only particularly daunting figure in the trio, but in Donner's version I now feel - as Superman must - that all three Kryptonians present a viable threat. That isn't to say that Donner's cut is entirely humorless; rather, the laughs come from all the right places: Luthor's sly attitude, the Clark/Lois relationship, and Reeve's easygoing personality. 5-0 now.

But in the last quarter, Lester scores a point for a better ending. "Hang on," you say, "this is the guy who used cellophane super-shields and multiple Supermen to end his movie?" Well, yeah, and thank God those are gone. Donner's Fortress scenes are overall cleaner and truer to the spirit of Superman, but the actual ending of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is unpolished in very distracting ways. This newer version leaves entirely unanswered the fate of Lex Luthor, stranding him in the Fortress of Solitude - which, seconds later, is destroyed by Superman. Huh? And while Donner earns high marks for better handling Lois's conflicted feelings about knowing Clark's secret identity, he loses points for unoriginality. As much as I hated the amnesia kiss, I was even more let down by the way in which the Donner cut handles the problem of Lois knowing: reversing the rotation of the earth and going back in time. This ending worked in the first movie, but here it just feels like Donner ran out of ideas. For a film that feels so much fresher in the new cut, the ending doesn't do the rest of the film justice; as an added detriment, this time-traveling ending problematizes the last scene of the Donner cut, in which Clark returns to a diner to even the score with a burly trucker - which, if time had been undone, shouldn't need to be done if it didn't happen. So in that regard, Lester has the advantage, especially for his patriotic ending in which Superman restores the American flag to the White House. For a man who allegedly didn't understand the character, he sure hit the nail on the head with that one. Final score? 5-1.

So while the Donner cut isn't perfect, it's still leaps and bounds (over a tall building, most likely) better than the more pronounced-ly flawed Lester version. Some are complaining about the rough cut nature of the film; some effects shots are unfinished, and other scenes are drawn from screen tests plagued with continuity issues. But this is an iconic character whose very nature is based on the power of imagination. In the words of DC Comics marketing, "Just imagine." This is the version in which a man truly flies, the version I'll be watching again and again.
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is rated PG "for sequences of action violence, some language and brief mild sensuality." In terms of objectionable content, it's exactly identical to the original film, although the removal of comic relief may make the violence seem a little more unrelenting - which isn't a bad thing in my opinion. I doubt that Kryptonian criminals hot out of exile would stop to arm-wrestle a few yokels.

Superman II (1980)

I've always had the impression that Superman II is, with Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight, widely (perhaps almost universally) regarded as a comic book sequel that's better than its predecessor. I'm not entirely convinced by that statement, but only because I'm not certain that Superman II exceeds its predecessor. It certainly soars equally as high, but there are a few missteps which seem to be newcomer director Richard Lester's fault (I'll know more after I screen the Richard Donner cut). Don't get me wrong, though; Superman II is nevertheless fantastically compelling.

With Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) safely behind bars, Superman (Christopher Reeve) is flying high, thwarting Parisian terrorists and saving children at Niagara Falls. His mild-mannered alter ego, reporter Clark Kent, is teamed on a honeymoon racket expose with tough-as-nails Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), who's growing suspicious of Clark's absence every time Superman appears. Meanwhile, a freak accident unleashes three Kryptonian criminals (Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran) from the prison dimension The Phantom Zone; these new foes seek to conquer Earth and take revenge on Superman, the son of their jailer Jor-El. Meanwhile, Superman wrestles with the decision between his superpowers and a mortal life with Lois.

Superman II picks up right where its predecessor left off and so feels more like a natural extension of the first than an actual sequel (where, for contrast's sake, The Empire Strikes Back felt more like a sequel to Star Wars, three years removed both in real time and narrative time). Consequently, much of what I praised about the first film still applies here; the action scenes are still rousing, the performances are still above-board, and the movie is just as fun as the one that kicked off the franchise. As all the best sequels do, Superman II builds upon and deepens material from Superman: The Movie without resting on its laurels and merely repeating more of the same (though I loved it, Iron Man 2 was guilty of this "more of the same" business, although that worked tonally for the movie, which needed only to be more than the first to be successful, which it was). Standout features here are the complex relationship between Clark Kent and Superman; this identity crisis, merely alluded to in the first film, takes one of three rings in this circus, fleshed out by riveting performances by Reeve and Kidder, between whom the chemistry is palpable.

Also developed is a throwaway line by Marlon Brando (who is noticeably missing here) in the first film: "The son becomes the father." Here, Superman is held culpable for his father's role as jailer of Stamp's General Zod and his compatriots Ursa and Non. Superman's acceptance of this responsibility is well-played by Reeve, who lets us see the conflicted nature of this choice. While we're on the subject, major points to Terence Stamp, who's absolutely dynamite as General Zod; Stamp never lets us remember that this is a comic book movie, because Zod is so three-dimensional and real that it's easy to forget his intricate sci-fi backstory. Underneath all his black leather and superpowered trappings, Zod still possesses very human sensibilities - the desire to conquer, the inevitable boredom in an arena without challenge, and a general contempt for lower creatures (which, in Zod's case, is anyone else). Stamp so fully inhabits the character that it's no surprise people are still to this day quoting his trademark "Kneel before Zod!" to the point where his current comics counterpart invokes the slogan every so often. Douglas and O'Halloran are serviceable but ultimately little more than window dressing to accentuate the degree to which Superman is outmatched.

As for the human villain, Hackman returns as Lex Luthor and does an even better job than he did before; in Superman: The Movie, Lex was fairly one-note - brilliant but disdainful of others - where here he gets a new dimension. With only his great criminal mind at his disposal after a quick jailbreak, Lex allies himself with the Kryptonian supercriminals in a bid for conquest and the destruction of mutual enemy Superman; this plan is a fairly poor one, though, and it's fascinatingly fun to watch Hackman struggle to play both sides against each other while ensuring that he's friends with the winner when the dust settles. Hackman gets bonus points for delivering my favorite line of the film - a simple "Superman, thank God," which he imbues with a mix of relieved desperation and pitch-perfect comedic timing. Other humans include Kidder, who takes her game to the next level, making Lois's burgeoning suspicions about Clark feel natural and not forced; comics readers wondered for decades why Lois couldn't figure it out, and Kidder reminds us why - the character is so razor-sharp that her discovery was inevitable, and if anyone could bring that intellect to life, it's Margot Kidder.

All this has been in praise of Superman II, but the film isn't entirely golden. Like its hero when exposed to Kryptonite, the film stumbles in a few places, and I'm inclined to blame director Richard Lester for these boo-boos. First and most apparent is the introduction of several unconventional and/or entirely unprecedented new superpowers exhibited by Superman, Zod, and the latter's compatriots. I'm inclined to pardon the film's depiction of Zod, Ursa, and Non as telepathically capable; although as Kryptonians they shouldn't have any powers Superman doesn't, tweaking the source material here isn't a dealbreaking travesty. More problematic, though, is the bevy of abilities Superman exhibits here: teleportation (which, if a Google search is any indication, is intended to be super-speed, though poorly rendered), self-duplication, cellophane S-shields, and amnesia kisses. It's been alleged that Lester knew nothing about the Superman mythos before joining the production team, and it's not unfathomable based on the outlandish disregard for the commonly accepted Superman mythology (the amnesia kiss was deployed once or twice in throwaway issues of the Silver Age). Other problems include an overreliance on distracting slapstick comedy; while Superman is intended to be a fun character, unburdened with the gravitas that dominates characters like Batman and The Hulk, the humor here borders on distracting, as when Zod deploys super-breath against Metropolis - and a dozen or so visual gags ensue. One or two would have sufficed, but it seems Lester didn't want to waste a single wind joke. Moments like this pepper - or rather, pollute - the film, taking away dramatic importance by shifting focus away from the growing threat of the Kryptonian conquerers and placing the spotlight instead on nitwit sheriffs in Houston or on bumbling bystanders.

None of this, fortunately, is severe enough to damage the movie irreparably. Indeed, their greatest offense in my book is to prevent Superman II from being altogether better than Superman: The Movie. Viewed back to back, these two films are a little like The Godfather and its sequel, The Godfather, Part II in that they're really one experience broken in half, with complementary but not competing qualities. It's difficult to identify a superior picture (between Superman flicks, not Godfather movies), so let's simply concede that both are well constructed depictions of America's greatest icon.
Like its forebearer, Superman II is rated PG, although without an explanatory note. It's on the whole very similar to the first film in terms of violence (that is, bloodlessly cartoonish), although this one introduces a snippet of bare-shouldered cuddling, the implications of which parents may not approve for their children.

Superman: The Movie (1978)

After hearing word that Christopher Nolan is godfathering a reboot of the Superman franchise, it occurred to me that I'd never actually seen the original Superman beginning to end in one sitting. I'd seen Superman II and knew most of the major twists in the first film, but watching it all in one go was a wild experience for me, an avowed comic book fan. Though Batman is still #1 for me, Superman: The Movie (redundant title aside; it's as though I titled this review "Superman: The Movie: The Review," which maybe I should have) is a movie that reminds us all what's iconic about the character - and faithfully and lovingly represents that on the screen.

Summary seems ridiculous here, since everyone knows the origin of Superman, and the origin story is the focal point of Superman: The Movie. The best retelling of Superman's origin came in Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman #1 (Jan. 2006), which I'll reprint here by way of summarizing the first half of Richard Donner's Superman film: "Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple." Here, Marlon Brando and Susannah York open the film as Jor-El and Lara, the aforementioned scientists who place their young son Kal-El in a rocketship to escape the dying planet Krypton; Kal-El lands on earth and is adopted by Ma & Pa Kent of Smallville, who name the boy Clark Kent. After Pa dies, Clark (Christopher Reeve) moves to Metropolis, where he becomes a journalist at The Daily Planet under editor Perry White's (Jackie Cooper) wing before falling in love with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). After making his debut as costumed superhero Superman - replete with flying, invulnerability, and super-strength - he finds himself tousling with his soon-to-be nemesis Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman).

Superman: The Movie is essentially the gold standard for any superhero movie to follow; it establishes solidly the "formula" of the genre, and it does so with fresh-faced aplomb. The film follows Clark Kent through the important phases of his growth as a hero without feeling that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory feeling of "These are the story beats we need to hit, so let's keep moving. Though there's no underlying motivation for heroics - i.e., guilt (Iron Man), vengeance (Batman), thrills (Kick-Ass) - the movie aptly demonstrates that Superman is a hero simply because it's in his nature; he never lies, he believes in the innate goodness of humanity, and he has an unprecedented capacity for compassion. On this count, it's not difficult to see why Reeve is so closely associated with this role, and why artists like Gary Frank still draw the character in Reeve's likeness more than 30 years later (seriously, it's uncanny); Reeve does a first-rate job of embodying the unequivocal good nature of the character, but he also succeeds by leaps and bounds as the klutzy but similarly kind-hearted alter ego Clark Kent, who is in many ways the harder of the two to play. Anyone can don the spandex and be a hero, but any actor who tackles Superman has to also pull off an intentionally putzy performance as Clark Kent; Reeve does both, admirably.

The other performers are in good form, and they deserve mention because several of them (as bigger stars in the day, and perhaps still now) got billing over Reeve (crazy, right?). Surprisingly, Brando doesn't phone it in here, though I was expecting him to since his lines were written on baby Kal-El's diaper as he refused to memorize them; he's surprisingly convincing as Jor-El, with genuine affection for his son and lethargic disdain for the stubborn councilmen of Krypton. Kidder is fantastically funny as Lois Lane, capturing all of the character's comedic sensibilities from her pronounced problems with spelling to her flirtatious interview style. And Hackman is unique here because his Lex Luthor is entirely unlike the source material; he's not quite the bald super-scientist, nor is he the portly capitalist (who, admittedly, appeared in the comics nearly a decade after this film), nor the Superman's-buddy-gone-bad (which, if you ask me, is the only worthwhile contribution Smallville has made to the canon in nine years of television airtime, though even that appeared in comics as early as the 50s). Instead, sporting a bevy of outlandish wigs, he's something else altogether, a cocky would-be super-criminal surrounded by nincompoops (Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine); he knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he enjoys it too much to develop a conscience - the measure of all good villains. It's not necessarily how evil they are that matters; the ultimate mark is whether or not they care about being evil.

Director Richard Donner is regarded as something of a god in the world of comic book films, probably because of the mistreatment he suffered surrounding Superman II (a review of his cut of that film, as well as the original, will forthcoming). But with Superman: The Movie, Donner cemented himself as a top-notch filmmaker at least of the genre (his version of The Omen was also first-rate). What's downright divine about Superman: The Movie is the way that Donner handles scenes of slapstick comedy, romantic tension, and heartrending drama - all with the same level of dexterity. One of my favorite sequences is Superman's first night on the job, in which he tackles several different crimes of unequal stature with the same dignified composure - an apt metaphor, I think, for Donner's abilities. I was also intrigued by Christological parallels: a father casts out an evildoer to a hellish dimension, then sends his son to earth to save us. Throw in Miss Teschmacher as Mary Magdalene, and we're looking at a pretty compelling allegory.

Overall I was impressed by this film. It's well-rounded, balancing low comedy and high action with some fantastically loyal performances grounding the whole affair in verisimilitude and dynamite fidelity to the source material. I'm looking forward to reviewing the others to see if they'll shake my faith that yes, a man really can fly. Statistically speaking, of course, it's still the safest way.
Superman: The Movie is rated PG "for peril, some mild sensuality and language." There's nothing the kiddies haven't seen on a Saturday morning cartoon here, although some of Miss Teschmacher's clothing is a titch revealing - but then again, it is a comic book movie.