Not many superhero movies are as good as the first forty-five minutes of this film ...
Including the remaining ninety-minutes of "Superman: The Movie."
shareIncluding the remaining ninety-minutes of "Superman: The Movie."
shareYou are wrong. Superman 1&2 is in fact one film.
And very few films, not just those of comic books, can match the story, acting, plot, direction, music.
Its 2 films otherwise it wouldn't be called Superman 1 & 2.
shareUnfortunately, you're right because Richard Donner was fired and replaced before he completed the second film. Two different visions for both movies.
Years later, Donner recreated the Superman 2 film as how he envisioned it. The official Superman 2 theatrical release is really good, but Donner's version is even better.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Where can you see Donner's version?
shareIt doesn't seem like they tried as hard with the Metropolis scenes. Whereas the first forty-five minutes are filled with grandeur and pathos the rest of the movie coasts on Reeve's charismatic turn and William's timeless score.
And what's with the villains? I love Hackman but it's like here he's dead-set on out-camping Burgess Meredith's Penguin from the '60s "Batman" series. Hackman has a coiled intensity that's put to extraordinary use in movies like "Unforgiven." Why not tap into that while playing an iconic villain like Lex Luthor?
It's called, "Superman II - The Richard Donner Cut." I bought a Superman box set with all the films, but it's available individually at itunes and amazon to buy or stream. BTW, Donner said he couldn't do everything he had wanted since years had passed when he finally made his version, but I liked the changes I did see.
https://www.amazon.com/Superman-II-Richard-Donner-Cut/dp/B000IJ79WU
The "Richard Donner cut" is available on DVD and blu-ray. In fact, it's the only version of Superman II available by itself on blu-ray in the US. You may occasionally see it at Best Buy for about $8.
It's an interesting concept. But a couple things stick out: the Richard Donner cut features Superman doing the time-travel/spinning globe thing (again), as this was originally intended to happen in the second movie *instead* of the first one. Also, the scene at the hotel now uses some rough rehearsal footage, because it's the only extant footage that comes close to how Donner originally wanted the scene.
To get the *theatrical* version of Superman II on blu-ray, you either have to buy the "anthology" collection that includes ALL of the Christopher Reeves Superman movies (even the stupid ones), or get a hold of the European individual release.
I would agree, and I think the first 45 minutes of "Superman" are the weakest part of the film!
I never liked the parts where he was an uninteresting toddler or a whiny teen, IMHO the film started to get really great when he hit the bright lights of Metropolis and met Lois Lane (and Lex Luthor). That's when the fun and excitement started!
But yeah, in my head I've always separated this film into three acts, Act 1 being Supes's youth, Act 2 being when he sets up shop in Metropolis and it's suddenly very funny, and Act 3 being where the shit gets real and it's not funny any more. The film undergoes two drastic changes in tone, and I might consider that a flaw if I wasn't so fond of this movie. Anyway, I myself prefer "act 2" and "act 3", fine if you like "act 1" but how can you like the part without Chris Reeve the best?
For me the movie is comprised of two acts: "Pre-Superman" and "Superman." The "Pre-Superman" stuff is excellent while the "Superman" stuff is mediocre at best -- mainly because IMHO Margot Kidder is a grating Lois Lane, Hackman, while entertaining, isn't nearly menacing enough, way too much camp, and the phenomenally stupid "turning back time" scene at the end. In short, they don't seem to be putting as much effort into the "Superman" portion as they did the "Pre-Superman" stretch, electing instead to just ham it up and have fun. Which is fine except the preceding forty-five minutes before you turned "Superman: The Movie" into a quasi-farce you were taking this material relatively seriously. Now, I'm not expecting a property like "Superman" to be Shakespeare but I do expect a little consistency and "Pre-Superman" and "Superman" seem like they're from two different movies -- and for someone like myself, who was enjoying the former movie quite a bit, to have to suddenly settle for the latter, is, to put it mildly, a let-down.
shareTastes do differ, don't they.
I find the part where the Superman saga to be boring, and I LOVE the comedy! And I adore Kidder's Lois Lane, she's hilarious and totally convincing as a big-city top reporter.
Tell me, did you like "Man if Steel"? I though that was the grimmest, dullest, least interesting superhero movie I've ever seen, but the guys who like Serious comic-book movies all seem to love it.
I also forget the flying montage set to Kidder reciting poetry -- sheer torture as far as I'm concerned.
"Man of Steel" took itself way too seriously. "Superman: The Movie," after the first forty-five minutes, didn't take itself seriously enough. The next "Superman" installment would serve itself, and the audience, well if it found a way to exist between these two extremes -- like John William's "Superman" theme does. William' music strikes the perfect balance between the playful and the solemn, the cheesy and the cool, the larger-than-life and the relatable -- and does so while being uplifting, fun and earworm-tastic. If someone could make a "Superman" film that could be set to that timeless score (though not necessarily include that music) I think we'd have a winner.
Regarding the flying poetry scene, that's definitely one scene where viewer reactions are subjective. FYI if the viewer has fallen madly in love with Reeve's Superman by that point, as at least 50% if the audience had, Lois's reactions and song lyrics seem right and natural. Enviable, even!
And yes I do love the JW score, although I don't think it matches his immortal work in Star Wars.
As for the first part of the film vs the second, I just don't feel the same way about serious drama that it her people do. I work in the helping professions and spend my working days experiencing serious drama, so I place a much higher value on comedy than some other people do. Some people dismiss comedy as "childish", but I think it's the highest form of filmic entertainment, the most difficult to create and the most rewarding to watch.
I felt that the movie devolved into silly comedy when the setting switched to Metropolis.
share