Review: Superman III

As I continue my pursuit of watching all the Superman films, this was the next entry on my list.

Superman 3 focuses on a new villain, Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn).  On the outside he is a generous philanthropist, doling out heaping handfuls of money to whatever group he deems fit.  He is a powerful man, born into wealth, and, secretly, looking to do anything in his power to get more.  Even if that means going beyond the limits of the law.  We are also introduced to Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor).  He is a lazy man in denial and unable to hold down a job of any kind.  After enrolling into a basic computer programming class, he finds he is a gifted genius computer whiz.  Gus pulls a techno bank heist to satiate his greedy lusts.  Rather quickly though, he is caught by his employer Webster.  Rather then fire him and turn him into the police, he creates a new partnership with the tech whiz.  What ensues is a new plot to defeat Superman and to get rich while they were doing it. SPOILER WARNING!

Likes - There is one thing about this film I really liked, Christopher Reeves performance as Superman.  Particularly, I really enjoyed Reeves portrayal of a Superman under the influence of tainted Kryptonite. He did a particular amazing job of playing a real person.  This is key because his portrayal of Clark as a bumbling nerd is all the more exemplified.  It give Reeves' Kent so much more credibility.

Dislikes - Oh Superman, how you continue to show us how not to do things!  Webster feels to me like a watered down Luthor.  In Superman 1 and 2, Hackman's Luthor has one ultimate, unspoken motivation - to prove his mental superiority over humanity.  Webster's motivation feels nothing more then making a quick buck.  It doesn't make much sense why he is going out of his way to make more money when he already owns his own business, along with it's own high rise skyscraper in Metropolis.  Gus Gorman is a bit more believable while also being much less likely.  It is very hard to believe how someone can be such a moron with everything in life, but somehow have an innate understanding of the inner workings of computers. So much so, he is able to create a virus that infects an entire corporation.  Also, Pryor seemed pushed into silly scenes, simply to give him a forum to display various impressions.  It felt forced and out of place.  In the end, I think Pryor was too big a name for this movie.  They tried to make this movie to be something else, instead of a showcase of Superman and how he handles the various problems that his special powers can't make go away.
Another aspect of this film is the general attitude of technology.  This is less a complaint and more an observation.  I love technology.  I have a degree in Computer Engineering because I love computers.  Technology is the future, pure and simple.  This film treats technology, computers in particular, as this strange magic, somehow able to do whatever you want it to do.  The film makers didn't understand that even computers have their limits.  They can't randomly shoot out lasers or suck in human flesh.  I found this treatment of computers very amusing and I feel like this attitude still prevails amongst people today.

Overall - I don't recommend watching this film, at least not if you want to see Superman.  I feel like Superman was included in this film almost as an afterthought or out of necessity.   Out of the 3 films I've seen of Superman, this is the most inconsistent.  Reeves delivers a great performance of Superman/Kent but it's not enough to justify watching this movie as a whole.  2 out of 5 stars.

Review: Superman I & II(R. Donner Cut)

  

I recently read an article on comicsallience.com.  It was about Superman 2 and how it has become a template for many modern superhero films, 30 years after it's debut.  

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/25/superman-II-anniversary-legacy/

After reading this article and also learning about the recently released Richard Donner cut of Superman 2, I realized I never really watched this series as a whole.  So I have planned to view the full set of Superman films.  I will also try to review each one, as a personal challenge.

Superman follows the beginnings of Kal-El and his trip to Earth.  From there, he is adopted by the Kents and raised as close to a normal boy as anyone possibly could, given the powers of a demigod.  Soon, after leaving Smallville, we see Clark grow into a man and into a new role - protector.  

Superman 2 follows almost immediately after Superman.  At least it seems that way.  General Zod, a traitor to the Kryptionian government, manages to escape his 2-dimensional prison and seeks to rule planet Earth.  Superman finds himself having to choose between happiness or righteousness.

Likes - The main aspect of the movie I enjoyed was the acting.  I think that, overall, the actors stayed true to the original characters of the comic. There were some exceptions I'd say.  Other then that, nothing really stands out to me.

Dislikes - Before I begin this section, let me start by saying I am a avid comic book reader, fan, and enthusiast.   This means I already have a clear picture of what I feel Superman should be. Also, SPOLIER ALERT!

So I found a lot wrong with Superman.  Let's start out with Superman's powers.  Donner stuck with the basic set - flight, speed, strength, heat vision.  Near the end though, we see something new.  Without any explanation, Superman has the ability to time travel.  He does so by reversing the rotation of the Earth.  I find  so many things wrong about this.  Superman is fully capable of changing Earth's rotation.  The issue comes from the fact that Donner somehow thinks this will reverse time.  If this were even remotely true, I think Superman would have gone back even further in time and made sure Lex Luthor never even thought about his crazy plan in the first place.  This made me SO angry.  This move is commonplace when it comes to Superman.  Unlike other superheros, with clearly defined abilities, Superman's powers seem to shift to what the current write feels needed.  Originally, Superman could only jump really high.  Due to the laziness of some animators, Superman's powered were retconned.  Now he can fly.  For writers, Superman ultimately is whatever you need him to be.

Another problem I have are with the characterizations of Superman and Lex Luthor.  Superman is something that Clark Kent does.  While he will always be the farm boy from Kansas, Superman is the ultimate extension of his morals and values.  He is a rare man, fully capable of making sure the upright path is being followed, overcoming the many temptations and limitations we mortals face everyday.  The movie took the opposite approach, Clark Kent is the facade while Superman is the real man.  This may have been the view during the time this film was produced.  I feel this approach makes Superman feel so much further from humanity.  Thus, it makes more sense that Superman protects people out of pity rather then out of his morals.  For Lex Luthor, I feel a similar disappointment.  In comic book land, Lex Luthor does not see himself as being evil.  In fact, he sees himself as humanity's protector, being the only one able to make the hard decisions, the hard sacrifices.  Additionally, he is the only one to see the threat the Superman is.  In the film, as great as Gene Hackman is, we get a one dimensional character.  No person ever thinks they are committing evil.  Even Hitler thought he was taking the morally upright path.  So when we see a self proclaimed genius talk about being evil, it feels so unreasonable.  

Regarding Superman 2, I have the same feelings.  Zod is a would-be dictator with the power and support to control the whole world.  The film fails to delve into why he would even want to conquer Earth.  Personally, if I found a whole planet I could subjugate single handedly, I would get bored of it quickly.  We see that to a small extent in the film, I admit.  Ultimately, the audience is given absolutely no background to Zod's motivation other then ... no one likes to invite him to birthday parties.  Maybe? I don't know.

Also, the end was exactly the same as Superman! WTF? FUCK this random time travel bullshit!

Overall - Despite everything I find wrong with these two films, I still recommend you watch it.  Less for the quality and more for the history attach to this franchise.  These films are also a great example of what happens when you let outsiders take over a legacy they have no idea about.  Eventually, they take a revered brand and try to milk it for all they can.  They leave behind nothing but a shell of the greatness once there.  This film is fun for the non-comic nerd.  For those who really know and care about Superman, these film really pillage a great icon.  These films are not a great example of who Superman really is.  These films are a great example of what the Superman mythos goes through to reach the masses.