1987 sequelRating: 8/20
Plot: Superman tries to disarm the entire world while. At the same time, nemesis Lex Luther uses his knowledge of cloning and fission to create a nuclear man, who he names Nuclear Man, in order to get rid of the Man of Steel once and for all.
I was too old to see this when it came out. Either that or I saw Superman III, actually a worse movie, and decided that I was done. This has all kinds of signs indicating that this was just a tired franchise with nothing more to add. Except for Gene Hackman's performance as Lex Luther. That's still an inspired performance that makes him the sort of terrific villain that you really love to root against. Too bad the writers didn't help him out much. And too bad they gave him a completely useless and obnoxious side kick and had an apparently blind person handle his wardrobe. Most of Superman IV feels like attempts to construct a "Best of Superman" montage. The best example of this self-plagiarization is in that attempt to reconstruct the romantic Lois Lane and Superman flying around scene. Of course, you've got the damsel in distress motif again with Lois Lane nearly biting it in a freak subway accident. How many times can one character nearly die in freak accidents? You've also got all kinds of moments where physics/science/common sense is completely disregarded. Business suit clad women in space? Stopping a volcano with the top of a mountain? Using a giant net to hold the world's nuclear missiles? Moving the moon without negatively affecting things on the earth? Using scissors to cut a hair that is supposedly strong enough to hold one thousand pounds? Giving Superman the ability to make bricks with his eyes? Nuclear Man is goofy looking, and some of the special effects are really tacky. Add to all this the message at the heart of the film, a message that is subtly hammered into your head multiple times, and you've got a pretty terrible movie. But at least it isn't as bad as III. And at least Christopher Reeve is still pretty good.
Who's seen the new one? Is it worth my time?
7 comments:
I don't think you would like "Superman Returns". Unlike the "Batman" franchise, it really adds nothing and has no other point than to try to cash in and make money. Spacey is an unpleasant and humorless heavy and the film gets very dark, and not in a good way. The two lead's main qualification is to be very good looking, but nothing about this film is memorable except for a few special effects. I agree IV is poor and III is one of the worst movies ever, so you should watch the first two again, instead.
I still have most of the original memorized from my childhood. Haven't seen 'Superman II' in a while. I don't think, by the way, that either are particularly great movies. 'Superman' hasn't aged well...
If I can love monster movies, I can still love "Superman" and "Superman II" as much as ever. I feel sorry for you.
Well, I can definitely love movies that aren't great...I'll always have a sweet spot for 'Superman' but Dylan really hated it when he saw parts of it. Of course, he seems to hate most movies...
I'd keep a close eye on that boy. I saw it in a theatre when it came out, and it remains one of my favorite movie experiences. I have told my wife so many times they she could puke that if we ever get a big screen TV, "Superman" will be the first movie we all watch together. Oddly enough, and unrelated, she doesn't think we really need a big screen TV.
I thought Superman Returns was decent. It got too much into the reverence for the first Superman movie, and didnt forge its own way, plus the action in it is too limited. There is very little Clark Kent, and Superman is so isolated from humanity that he loses any connection you can make to yourself.
Its a well crafted movie, and the acting is very good. Its worth seeing. The action scene with Superman saving an airplane is one of the best super hero scenes I have watched.
As for Quest for Peace. Hey, I saw it in the THEATER. Now thats hard core. What a dreadful movie.
By the way, just saw Superman (The 1978 original) again. How can you say it hasnt aged well? The effects are fine, and Reeve and Hackman are incredible in the roles. It doesnt even look like a seventies movie...its fairly timeless.
Maybe 'Superman' is a better movie than I think...it really has been a while since I saw the whole thing. The last time I saw it, I believe, was on a network, and it looked really grainy and colorless. Maybe that hurt its chances...I've felt nostalgic recently (mid-life crisis, I think) and will see 'Superman' soon.
Post a Comment