For those of you who are unaware, there is a film out currently that is the third installment of a cinematic trilogy. However, it does not have a roman numeral, or a 3, or even a designating subtitle in its name. It is called The World's End and it is the completion of the Cornetto Trilogy.
The creative team of Edgar Wright (Director), Simon Pegg (writer/actor), and Nick Frost (writer/actor) have known each other for a long time and have collaborated on some of the funniest films of the last decade. The films in question are of course Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and the aforementioned The World's End. They do not tell a continuous story, or relate in any wayto each other besides returning actors, a kinetic style of film-making and a love of the European ice cream brand Cornetto.
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Man of Steel (2013)
Finally
to the point of all of this. If you couldn't tell already, I think that
Superman could due with a cinematic course correction. When Looking back at the other films, aside from a nostalgic desire to say they're great, they aren't so much: plots are dicey, character development is weak, and, aside from Reeve, the other characters just aren't particularly interesting. So I felt, going into Man of Steel that the filmmakers needed to completely forget what had been done on film before.
And they pretty much did.
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman Returns (2006)
The 90's were, for Superman film fans, the lost years of the man of steel (Though we did have a few great TV shows during that time). There were scripts upon scripts proposed during that period: A fifth Christopher Reeve entry featuring the death and return of the character, Several attempts to reboot the franchise including a whacked out of its gourd treatment by Tim Burton and producer Jon Peters that involved the death of a flightless, capeless, Superman and a Giant spider (which I happen to be making an animated rendition of currently).
In the 21st century, there were talks by JJ Abrams of a Superman movie where he goes to the afterlife to learn a few lessons from his pop, and even a Superman/Batman crossover film that only really happened in the I am Legend universe.
With Superman Returns, they decided to take things back to what made the first two movies great, and make a sequel... to a 24 year old movie.
Well that could've gone better.
There were a lot of things I sort of liked about this movie when it came out. I liked Brandon Routh as Clark Kent (not so much as cold and creepy supreman) and I liked Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, mostly because even though he's still inexplicably land obsessed, is much more insane and threatening in this movie. Supporting cast is pretty strong, but, yet again, we have kind of a lame Lois Lane. We also have Super-kid (who kills a guy by smashing him with a piano) and, once again, a plot that keeps the hero and villain apart for far to long in the movie.
I'm also pretty sure that this costume killed Superman's underpants in movies for years to come.
The effects in this movie are Superb and the Super feats are pretty cool too, but then again, superman lifting things is just kind of OK. There's also a few bizarre things that I don't quite get, like why lex Luthor would want land to be transformed into that ugly infertile black stone. I mean, sure, everybody needs land, but I think that everyone would crowd all the pretty parts of the world to avoid staying in that hell.
In general, I think the movie was held back by its need/desire to replicate what had come before it. Director Bryan Singer never got the chance to create a new cinematic vision of Superman and instead just tied himself to his affection for the original two movies, which, as I have said, twice, had plenty of problems and weren't that great.
I think if they tried to break with tradition, it would have provided a more interesting, and ultimately more successful film. I guess not even John William's Score and a Christopher Reeve look-alike could make it work. At least he didn't kill anyone in this one!
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman III (1983)
and
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Suck.
Let me elaborate on this. Superman movies had been alright up to this point. That was the case, I'm certain, because of the involvement of Richard Donner, the director of the first movie and half of the second. Superman II director Richard Lester was on his own for the third movie. An early draft of III contained Mr Mxyzptlk, Brainiac, and Supergirl that was actually pretty interesting, but Warner Brothers thought that it wasn't that great. So instead we got this...
Superman III doesn't feel quite like a Superman movie it all. It feels like too completely separate films (a story about superman visiting smallville and a wacky 80s comedy involving greedy people and computers) intercut with each other. In short, this movie is almost not worth talking about. There are only five good things about this movie:
1. Christopher Reeve once again does an admirable job as Supes.
2. Almost no Margot Kidder.
3. Annette O'Toole's Lana Lang
4. "Sling! Sing-a-pore Sling!"
5. Evil Superman.
When Superman begins to be effected by the gunky Kryptonite and becomes a Jerk, I think the movie is at it's most interesting. I mean, he rams an oil tanker, messes up the leaning tower of Pisa, and blows out the olympic torch just because. I also really like the sequence where he has a battle with himself, especially since the good part of him is represented by Clark Kent.
This movie is pretty bad, much worse than the first two, but it is nothing compared to the shitstorm that is Superman IV.
The fourth installment in the series brings back Margot Kidder's Lois Lane and Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the series "Final" installment. Some of the ideas at its heart aren't too bad. Superman decides, at the behest of a little kid, to disarm all nuclear warheads on the planet to try and force world peace, something he later learns that he can't do. There is also the Daily Planet getting taken over by an entertainment mogul out to turn the respected paper into a tabloid. Not bad things, inherently. But then there's this.
That's "Nuclear Man," created from a strand of Superman's hair, some of lex luthor's dna, and the sun... or something. Instead of having a real supervillain from the source material, they get an 80's rocker looking dude with long nails.
The effects are cheap, the plot cuts corners and makes no sense and Superman is given new powers again. In the end, he totally kills Nuclear man by dropping him into a reactor. And come to think of it, He sort of just abandons the villains in the third movir in that cave in... is killing the same as let-die?
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.
I could have just done that, but after watching the first three
Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need
to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for
that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring
to what has gone before.
Superman II (1980)
A
comment was made in watching the first two films stating that they feel like one
big movie. This is absolutely true. If there were no Superman II simultaneously being planned and filmed the first five minutes of the first movie would make absolutely no sense. Why would we begin with the condemnation of criminals if it didn't come back to them later. So I would refer to it as Superman: The Movie Part II.
Again we have Christopher Reeve doing a great Job as Supes and Clark Kent, and again we have a great film score, but we also have a host of issues. This movie has many great sequences that make it interesting, such as Superman giving up his powers to be with Lois, as well as a fairly well executed bout between Superman and his three Kryptonian foes. I'd say besides Reeves and the score, the villains make for a good addition.
And then there is this...
What?
This movie gives Superman and the other aliens powers that he doesn't have or need. He can apparently teleport, use telekinesis, multiply himself, and... throw his S at someone. He also can remove someone's short-term memory by kissing them, a power that I have dubbed "The Roofie Kiss." As there is good in this movie, so is there bad. Supes, as in the first one, spends 2/3s to 3/4s of the movie apart from, and unaware of, his antagonists. Also there's the crazy scene where he almost lets Lois die to protect his secret. Which leads me to "The Richard Donner Cut."
The first Superman movie was directed by Richard Donner, and half of Superman II was directed by him as well. But due to a tonal disagreement with the producers, he was let go, and Richard Lester took over. The Producers wanted it to be sillier, and in essence, dumber. The "Richard Donner Cut" is an assembly of all the extra scenes Donner shut cut into the movie along with some test footage to fill the gaps. It makes the movie more serious and in general much better. That still doesn't mean its great. Superman still spends too much time separate from Zod and the others as well as using the same time travel trick from the first movie to render all the events of this film pointless. Yikes.
A lot of people overlook the weird and silly things in this movie and just say its great and walk away. Most people even overlook the fact that Superman totally kills his enemies in this movie, With Lois even punching the girl to her icy Death. They all die, and its' not considered terrible or even morally ambiguous, but triumphant. I mention this because it death like this will come into play later.
I don't want to come off as a hater, but I have to be honest. I can still enjoy the movie, but it's by no means a perfect, or unimpeachable film representation of the adventures of Superman.
If you're going to watch Superman II, go for the Richard Donner Cut. But either way, you get this immensely gratifying, if morbid, scene at the end.
I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel. I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends last night, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old. The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.
Superman: The Movie (1978)
Though the character was born in the late 1930s, and it was preceded by a few big screen and small screen representation, this movie is where most people look for their definitive vision of Superman. I could almost declare that this is THE most iconic portrayal of the character, but I won't do that.
This is a drawing by comic artist Gary Frank. He draws Superman as if he's Christopher Reeve. Undeniably, it has had an effect. But I think its mostly due to rosy glow of nostalgia, and not due to cinematic perfection or character rendition. Don't get me wrong, I have affection for this movie, but only for two reasons: Christopher Reeve and John Williams' score.
It tells a good origin story for Superman, and has a few fun scenes with Reeve as Clark Kent and an astonishing amount of innuendo with Margot Kidder, who does NOTHING for me. The Villain and the hero spend too much time apart in the movie, he gives away every possible weakness to a reporter who publishes it, and the writers made a massive boner at the end of the movie. The main reason I can still enjoy this movie, and I suspect others can enjoy it, is because its old and I grew up with it. The movie has alot of issues: pacing, plotting, and time travel.
Yes, that happens. They wrote themselves out of the narrative hole of a character's death with time travel. This is pretty dumb, and brings Superman from Science Fiction into fantasy, where he doesn't belong. I think that movie that people intentionally ignore the dumb parts so that they can conveniently call it great and say its better than other things. That's BS. In short, its a movie that's only as good as your sense of Nostalgia allows. It is by no means a perfect movie, and by that merit, it shouldn't be viewed as unimpeachable. TIME TRAVEL!
