Runtime:
127 minutes
Directed
by: Richard Lester... and Richard Donner
Starring:
Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder (RIP), Gene Hackman, Terence Stamp,
Sarah Douglas, Jack O'Halloran
From:
Warner Bros.
This is a review of both the theatrical version of this movie and the 2006 Richard Donner Cut that he completed (at least to the best of his ability); I imagine everyone knows by now that he was let go from II so Richard Lester had to finish the film. I'll note the two versions by different fonts:
There are plenty of movies I'd like to see soon (some of which
involve individuals that recently passed away) but as I watched all the
Salkind Superman movies when I was a little kid, I was sad when I heard
that Margot Kidder had passed away. As a kid I only knew her from those
films, then as an adult I saw films like Black Christmas and Amityville
Horror... she could play plenty of different roles but she was great
doing such characters as Barb from Black Christmas... a tough, sassy
lady who I could imagine drinking shots of whiskey with, for example.
Off the screen, she dealt with mental health issues and she had a real
bad few days in the mid 90's-sparked by a computer virus, of all things
in that time period-but after that she had no more episodes and was open
about her battles with said issues. She was great as Lois Lane in these
films but I am glad that her struggles did not lead to a tragic death
and instead she had a more normal death (if there could ever be such a
thing), passing away in her sleep at home.
Both this version and The Richard Donner Cut have their own separate issues (the review of the latter will be posted in a few hours) but what is a big help in both versions is Kidder and Christopher Reeve as the leads. They were great in their roles and with each other. What a bad time for Superman to voluntarily lose his powers so he could have Lois as a g/f right as a trio of villains from Krypton escape and happen to stumble upon Planet Houston... er, I mean Earth. There is more than one deus ex machina in this film, the biggest one being how Supes gets his powers back.
If I wanted to be overly critical, I could nitpick various issues with the story, how the humor isn't always funny and there probably is too much of it (yes, the MCU was not the first to have this problem; it is not as bad as in Superman III) and what I like to call “general comic book silliness.” The whole controversy over Richard Donner directing part of this before being replaced by Richard Lester... other places go in depth on what happened, although if Donner was invited back to finish II or not is still in question. For a film with those production problems, it usually isn't apparent as you're watching the movie. Although, the fact that Lex Luthor seemed like a character shoehorned into the movie and he wasn't around for long stretches was obvious to me... that is explained because Gene Hackman was loyal to Donner and did not want to film with Lester.
Despite all that and on a few occasions Superman living up to the meme of him being a dick, it is still an enjoyable film. It helps that the three super villains are all memorable and Terence Stamp's General Zod became iconic, and not just for KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! The Kryptonians doing battle with each other was memorable and fun with all the practical effects used to make some parts of New York Ci... I mean “Metropolis” being destroyed look realistic. I still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard about its final act... at least here Superman saves people who are in danger, which is an important plot point and the villains try to use this to their advantage. One day I guess I should watch Man of Steel since I am sure it will always be incredibly polarizing and I should judge for myself which camp I fall into.
Nostalgia may play a part in how I feel about this; it was something I watched and had fun with as a kid, and the same is true many years later when I know much about about what happened behind the scenes.
Both this version and The Richard Donner Cut have their own separate issues (the review of the latter will be posted in a few hours) but what is a big help in both versions is Kidder and Christopher Reeve as the leads. They were great in their roles and with each other. What a bad time for Superman to voluntarily lose his powers so he could have Lois as a g/f right as a trio of villains from Krypton escape and happen to stumble upon Planet Houston... er, I mean Earth. There is more than one deus ex machina in this film, the biggest one being how Supes gets his powers back.
If I wanted to be overly critical, I could nitpick various issues with the story, how the humor isn't always funny and there probably is too much of it (yes, the MCU was not the first to have this problem; it is not as bad as in Superman III) and what I like to call “general comic book silliness.” The whole controversy over Richard Donner directing part of this before being replaced by Richard Lester... other places go in depth on what happened, although if Donner was invited back to finish II or not is still in question. For a film with those production problems, it usually isn't apparent as you're watching the movie. Although, the fact that Lex Luthor seemed like a character shoehorned into the movie and he wasn't around for long stretches was obvious to me... that is explained because Gene Hackman was loyal to Donner and did not want to film with Lester.
Despite all that and on a few occasions Superman living up to the meme of him being a dick, it is still an enjoyable film. It helps that the three super villains are all memorable and Terence Stamp's General Zod became iconic, and not just for KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! The Kryptonians doing battle with each other was memorable and fun with all the practical effects used to make some parts of New York Ci... I mean “Metropolis” being destroyed look realistic. I still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard about its final act... at least here Superman saves people who are in danger, which is an important plot point and the villains try to use this to their advantage. One day I guess I should watch Man of Steel since I am sure it will always be incredibly polarizing and I should judge for myself which camp I fall into.
Nostalgia may play a part in how I feel about this; it was something I watched and had fun with as a kid, and the same is true many years later when I know much about about what happened behind the scenes.
A few hours ago, I posted a review of the theatrical version of
Superman II; I have watched this before, back when it came out in '06.
It was a DVD I watched and the movie was an interesting curio, but last
night was the first viewing on Blu.
I rate this the same as I do the theatrical; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I can't get mad that some Lester footage had to be used in order to complete this, as that was the only way it could be done. The terrible CG that was used to complete some scenes... I did not remember how bad that looked, even by 2006 standards. At times the movie seems rushed and while some humor was taken out, there's an occasion or two where bad humor is added in.
Yet there are positives. A lot of the dumb humor was excised but the biggest asset is that Marlon Brando returned as Jor-El. He wasn't in II not because of the whole Donner being let go thing... rather, he was mad at the Salkinds as he felt he was not paid what he was owed. As an aside, the Salkinds don't sound like the best people to work for; allegedly Lester did not care for them either. Anyhow, the Brando estate allowed his footage to be used here. Those scenes happened to work better than the ones in the original with Superman's mom not because of the acting but because there is not only more gravitas, the dialogue is better so the drama is improved as they debate the critical topic of if Supes should give up his powers so he could have a girlfriend.
I'll close this out by mention some odd things. In both versions of the film, Perry White's office has hanging up something rather odd. I read about this in an article many years ago but for some reason, you get to see a framed photo of BILL COSBY. It has to be some sort of in-joke, an Easter egg. Unfortunately for the film, now that is incredibly awkward. Also, a woman remarks that Superman must be Jewish... strange, although the creators of the character (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) were Jewish so that is an in-joke I understand. But, the last bit relates to how Superman is a Dick, which is a meme that is still a thing.
To reveal a spoiler, the ending used here was partially borrowed from the first's ending. Well, actually... the original ending of II WAS to be Superman's wacky time travel thing but it was used for I's ending instead; no, I have no idea what I's original conclusion was going to be. It isn't as creepy as the mind-erasing kiss powers he has, although I then realized something hilarious. The very end of this is the same, although now Superman beats up someone who hadn't seen him before! Yeah, he was a bully and a jerk but now Clark Kent looks even more petty for getting revenge and it doesn't exactly live up to his virtuous image now, does it?
Irregardless, I believe that both cuts should be viewed, so you can decide for yourself which one you prefer.
I rate this the same as I do the theatrical; both have their strengths and weaknesses. I can't get mad that some Lester footage had to be used in order to complete this, as that was the only way it could be done. The terrible CG that was used to complete some scenes... I did not remember how bad that looked, even by 2006 standards. At times the movie seems rushed and while some humor was taken out, there's an occasion or two where bad humor is added in.
Yet there are positives. A lot of the dumb humor was excised but the biggest asset is that Marlon Brando returned as Jor-El. He wasn't in II not because of the whole Donner being let go thing... rather, he was mad at the Salkinds as he felt he was not paid what he was owed. As an aside, the Salkinds don't sound like the best people to work for; allegedly Lester did not care for them either. Anyhow, the Brando estate allowed his footage to be used here. Those scenes happened to work better than the ones in the original with Superman's mom not because of the acting but because there is not only more gravitas, the dialogue is better so the drama is improved as they debate the critical topic of if Supes should give up his powers so he could have a girlfriend.
I'll close this out by mention some odd things. In both versions of the film, Perry White's office has hanging up something rather odd. I read about this in an article many years ago but for some reason, you get to see a framed photo of BILL COSBY. It has to be some sort of in-joke, an Easter egg. Unfortunately for the film, now that is incredibly awkward. Also, a woman remarks that Superman must be Jewish... strange, although the creators of the character (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) were Jewish so that is an in-joke I understand. But, the last bit relates to how Superman is a Dick, which is a meme that is still a thing.
To reveal a spoiler, the ending used here was partially borrowed from the first's ending. Well, actually... the original ending of II WAS to be Superman's wacky time travel thing but it was used for I's ending instead; no, I have no idea what I's original conclusion was going to be. It isn't as creepy as the mind-erasing kiss powers he has, although I then realized something hilarious. The very end of this is the same, although now Superman beats up someone who hadn't seen him before! Yeah, he was a bully and a jerk but now Clark Kent looks even more petty for getting revenge and it doesn't exactly live up to his virtuous image now, does it?
Irregardless, I believe that both cuts should be viewed, so you can decide for yourself which one you prefer.
No comments:
Post a Comment