Superman: The Movie

1978 superhero movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Superman's mom and dad (Ja Rule and Beyonce) send him in a space craft made from shards of glass just before the destruction of their planet Krypton, also made from shards of glass. He is adopted by a couple hicks, and when one of them dies, he abandons the other and goes to live and work in the big city as Clark Kent, guy with glasses. He gets a job as a newspaper reporter, befriends a whore and a gay photographer, and brings tights right back into fashion. Meanwhile, Lex Luther, internationally infamous wig thief, has plans to do villainous things. Will Superman be able to stop the plan in time? Will it matter since he (SPOILER ALERT!) apparently has the ability to reverse the spinning of the earth and, despite what any sober physicist would say about the possibilities, reverse time?

And that's the biggest problem with this movie. I know where the phrase "jump the shark" came from and what it means. I want to know why the phrase wasn't "spin the globe" or something like that? The first 95% of this movie really isn't that great. I loved it as a kid, and the nostalgic side of me likes watching all of these scenes that I would play out in my backyard. But it's not a great movie. That last 5% though? Whoa. It's almost as if Lex Luther got a hold of the script and, as part of a dastardly scheme, burned the last few pages and added this stupid ending instead. Dastardly! No wonder none of the sequels work. If Superman can just reverse time when things aren't going his way, what's really the point of anything else that happens? It reminds me of that time I was playing rock-paper-scissors with that bald kid who lived down the street. Every time I'd win (my rock against his scissors), he'd pull a machete out, chop off my hand, and say, "Rocks don't count if they're on the ground." After he did that twice, I didn't even want to play with him anymore. I'd probably rather have my hand chopped off than have to watch the scene in this movie where Superman and pink-pantied Lois Lane are flying around a very phallic Statue of Liberty (apparently, they've got one of those in Metropolis) while she reads bad poetry. Other issues/questions with this movie:

1) The special effects are really good except for a scene when young Superman is racing a train and he looks like he's made out of rubber. That's one of the many scenes that could have been cut from this movie.

2) How can Lois Lane be stretched out like that with outstretched arms right next to Superman while they're flying? Why so stiff? (That's what she said.) This is right before he drops her. That, by the way, makes it all seem like a candidate for the worst first date ever.

3) Why does Marlon Brando have an "S" on his chest? His name's Ja Rule. Shouldn't he have a "J" on his chest? Kairow, what am I missing here?

4) Why did they have to use Reeve's voice (dubbed) for the teenage Superman? That's not a teenager's voice! No wonder his classmates were creeped out by him. That voice and those rubber legs?

5) Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't have any idea what's happening on Krypton. If there was never a sequel to this (maybe there shouldn't have been), all that stuff with the three leather-clad bad guys who wind up spinning through space in a triangular mirror wouldn't make any sense at all. And speaking of them, Marlon Brando mentions something about Irsa's perversion. Am I the only warm-blooded male watching this thing that thinks a prequel about Irsa's perversions would be a much better movie than any Superman movie they could make? You reading this, Hollywood? We're all waiting for Irsa's Perversions. You can even work in a CGI Yoda if you want.

6) Can Superman read minds? And if so, did he drop Lois Lane intentionally because he could hear her bad poetry?

7) Superman's disguise includes glasses and the parting of his hair on the opposite side. Come on. That's just ridiculous. He doesn't even disguise his voice like Christian Bale's Batman.

8) Full-frontal nudity? Is this the only super-phallus we get to see? And granted, he's just a boy, but we're talking about Superman's junk here. If this was George Lucas's movie, he would have already re-released this with an obscenely large CGI Superman penis by now. And probably thrown in a Yoda!

9) What's with those hula hoops on Krypton? I could watch those things for hours.

10) This movie is too long. So is this blog entry probably.

There are plenty of redeeming qualities though. The music is great, including the main theme played over the incredibly dynamic opening credits. I also like the cute little song that plays whenever Otis is up to something. I like Ned Beatty as Otis, and I think Gene Hackman is great as Lex. In fact, I can't imagine anybody else playing that part. Same with Christopher Reeve in the title role he seemed born to play. I like some of the humor, and there's a really big chunk of this movie (from the moment when Lois Lane's helicopter starts spiralling out of control until where things get really stupid at the end) that is pretty great. I also really dig the scene where Superman makes his ice castle. This is a movie I'll always secretly love despite its numerous flaws. I don't imitate it nearly as often now that I'm in my 30s although I can't think of a single situation in my life that the wearing of a big red cape wouldn't enrich.

10 comments:

cory said...

"sober physicist"... your review really cracked me up.

This is really where subjective and objective meet. Rubber-legged Clark is ridiculous looking and the "Can you read my mind" scene is too painful for me to watch as an adult.

The physics issue is kind of a non-issue since we are buying into all of the other superpowers which are logically ridiculous. In for a penny, in for a pound. I like to think he was only able to do it because of his love for Lois. I won't get into the logic of why anyone would love Lois.

The "S" on Brando stands for Super-scientist... or stud... or it's a screwed up dollar sign representing the 3 million he made for about 10 minutes of screen time. Maybe Barry knows the truth.

As far as the three badies, I think they were added to the current DVD incarnations, but were not in the original. Since everyone has seen these things already, it just adds to the original. Speaking of which, "Superman II" is too a GREAT sequel, and one of the best sequels ever!

I have never noticed the Reeve dubbing, so it has never bothered me. I'll need to check that out.

I saw this in a theatre when I was 14, and it is part of the great theatre experience trio (I couldn't figure out how to spell triumverate?) for me. First was "Jaws", then "Superman", and then "Raiders..." From the perfect credits that you mention, to the end, this is pure entertainment (without the poetry, though). You are right that Hackman and Beatty are fun and perfect. Reeve manages to wear tights through most of the film, and I still think he's great. The special effects are from the 70's, but they still mostly work. "Superman" is flawed, but the makers dared to dream of making a great and realistic? popcorn-superhero film, and they did a great job of it. A 20, for me

Shane said...

Oh, the scenes with the baddies in Superman II were added later? I didn't know that...I hadn't seen this one in a while and I think I missed the beginning the last time I saw it. I haven't seen the second one in even longer, but I'm going to watch it pretty soon.

If Barry doesn't know why Brando's got the "S," then Kairow will...he's a comics guy. I could probably look it up, but I'm not a looks-things-up guy.

'Jaws,' 'Raiders,' this...seems like 'Star Wars' should be in there somewhere. It wouldn't be a triumvirate anymore though. I do know how to spell triumvirate. One could accuse me of looking it up, but as I've already established, I'm not a looks-things-up guy.

You know what movie really did it for me when I saw it in the theater as a kid? 'Tron'! Man, I thought that was bitchin' but I had trouble following what was going on. I probably didn't get the beginning of Superman either. I must have been a slow kid.

cory said...

Sadly, I did not see "Star Wars" when it came out. I actually saw "Empire" first, and by then there was no surprise factor. I need to see "Tron" again.

My verification word is sated.

Barry said...

I always thought that the movie could have used some editing. It really is a bit too long. Yep..its a flaw.


In so many ways its a perfect film with the odd glaring flaw just like that.


Casting. My god its perfect. Reeve IS Superman. Hackman IS Lex Luthor. Ned Beatty is fantastic. Valerie Perrine, Jackie Cooper, Glen Ford..even the kid who plays the teenage Superman, Jeff East. FANTASTIC casting.

Oh wait...Margot Kidder? Skeletor on crack? Why the hell would Superman be in love with her? THE FLAW.


Great special effects that hold up just fine till today. Oh wait, we want to show the kid running as fast as a train? With all the clever editing and camera tricks used, they go with a kid suspended by wires and pretending to run next to a train. THE FLAW.


The plot....Lex Luthor wants to destroy California so that his own property in Nevada goes up. Its brilliant, evil and hilarious. He figures out a way to stop Superman with an old piece of home. He even has the backup plan of having TWO missiles, so that even if the plan to kill Superman fails, his destroying California plan still works. Superman beats the villain, and with some MORE amazing effects is able to rebuild the fault line. (The scene of him under the earth, lifting up that huge chunk of land, wile fire and glowing red magma flows all around him? Freaking incredible.)

He does all this, but instead of him just showing up in the nick of time to save Lois..as it SHOULD have been, he does the spin around the Earth thing. What I think you, and most people, miss here is...he is not "magically" spinning the earth back...he is going so fast that Superman is traveling through time to the point where he can be in time to save Lois. Its still dumb though, and completely unnecessary. As you pointed out, its a big flaw. THE FLAW.

I love this movie, and even after all these years, I still firmly believe its the second or third best super hero movie of all time. (I thought Spider Man 2 was more consistent, and The Dark Knight more gritty and compelling.) Thats pretty incredible for a movie more than 30 years old. I would still give it at LEAST an 18....actually a 19. So there.

Barry said...

I cannot believe I just read that. Cory did not see Star Wars when it came out. The only freaking 14 year old in the United States of America who did not see Star Wars in the theater.



Tron is entertaining, but very VERY dated.


The Brando S is one of those things that I was completely confused about when I saw the film. There has never been a good explanation for it, except of course that the filmmakers were not very familier with the Superman mythos, and decided that Marlon Brando needed to be distinguished as Supermans father.


Yeah...about as dumb as it gets. I just see that fat, late 70's Brando, about to get ready to destroy Apocolypse Now, rehearsing for that with this little scenario.


"I am Supermans dad? So how do people know this? I want an "S" on my chest too. Superman senior!!"


"Whatever you say, Mr. Brando. Hey is that Francis Ford Coppola over there? Is he saying something about you being able to completely write your lines for some movie you are making in Vietnam with him?"


Brando was a very destructive force, after all.

Shane said...

I just picked up 'Tron'...I'll watch it some time this week. VERY DATED is VERY accurate.

OK, so you're telling me Superman's speed isn't making the earth reverse its rotation but that the reversal of time is the cause? And that time travel is actually taking place because he's moving so fast? I have a headache now. I think that makes even less sense than what I thought though, doesn't it?

I think 'Apocalypse Now' is great.

I still await Kairow's explanation of Brando's "S" but I'm starting to believe that there's no reason for it at all. I just figured I was missing something.

Why does everybody think 'Spiderman II' is so much better than 'Spiderman' anyway? I like Dr. Tentacle better than Goblin Man, but other than that, aren't the effects, etc. about the same and isn't the story actually not as good? 'Spiderman III' is downright brutal!

Barry said...

I disliked Spider Man 3 quite a bit.



I did enjoy and like Spider Man one...a lot. Very good movie. I just thought that two was better done, with a more interesting villain, and a better overall script.

cory said...

"Spiderman 2" is much better than the first for several reasons. Mainly it has much greater focus on character relationships and the inner conflicts within Peter. The revelation of his true identity to his girlfriend and best friend have real emotional heft, versus the death of his uncle in the first movie, which was more of a plot device. The villian was more complex, the effects were better, and there was great balance to the story, which felt real versus gimmiky. The scene where the people in the subway gently lift and carry Peter is easily the most touching in the series. I was never moved by the first film.

Most of all, the first one had something I can't stand. You know that Peter wants revenge for his uncle, and that the bad guy needs to die. Through ridiculous contrivance, the villain does die without Peter actually getting his hands dirty. This convenient sort of death really pisses me off in a movie, since it solves the filmmaker's problem in a cowardly way.

"Spiderman 2" is much better that the first, and is the greatest sequel ever in terms of bettering the original. Throwing "Superman II" in as well, I would agree with Barry about the best superhero films.

Shane said...

Ehh. I could probably watch either of those Spiderman movies again. I've only seen them once each. I know Larst liked the second movie a lot. The first one was pretty boring, I guess, because I knew the story. And I do like Octopus better as a villain. He looked pretty cool. I still thought it suffered a bit from too many superhero cliches, and I didn't care much for the romance subplot. I don't remember the effects being better (I'll take your word for it though)...the flying around the city stuff wasn't new in the second one. Both of those Spiderman movies could be a lot better than I remember, probably because the dreadful 'Spiderman III' (which I believe is in the blog somewhere) left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Shane said...

and for the record, i came across the spidermans in an old notebook and gave the first one a 15 and the second a 16...third one got a 3