The Birth Of The Legend: Superman Starts The Cinematic Franchise Well!

The Good: Character, Acting, Decent plot progression, Idealistic morality
The Bad: Obvious dialectic that “reads” as false, Incredible problematic ending, Much of the editing
The Basics: The definitive cinematic enterprise for the Superman franchise, the 1978 Superman (recut on DVD) stands up remarkably well.


When it comes to superheroes, I don’t know that I was ever a big fan of Superman. Superman represents an ultimate good, a surprisingly monolithic character who becomes almost all-powerful and there is very little one can do with a character like that. So, it is probably no surprise why it has taken me so many years to go back and watch Superman a film I last saw decades ago as a child and have never had the interest in watching again. However, in the lead-up to Man Of Steel (reviewed here!), I figured I would give Superman - and its three sequels – a viewing. That starts, obviously enough, with Superman, a straightforward origin story as direct as the title character.

I was pleasantly surprised by how good Superman actually was, though it is quite far from being a flawless film. I think the biggest surprise for me was how much time Superman spends on backstory and creating a larger story that works to flesh out the universe Superman will occupy. For all the legendary qualities of Christopher Reeve as Superman, it is astonishing how much of the film does not include him. It is almost 52 minutes into Superman when Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent makes his appearance. As well, I cannot think of a classic film that spend as much time laying the framework for the sequel as Superman does. That said, I enjoyed the Director’s Cut of Superman and actually found the full build-up to the revelation of the hero to be very satisfying.

On the distant planet of Krypton, Jor-El is part of the governing body that condemns three violent criminals to the dreaded Phantom Zone, where they will not be able to harm anyone. While Jor-El frequently disagrees with the council, he goes along with sentencing the three criminals. Jor-El, however, defies the council and allocates power to launch a vessel to send his infant child off-planet before Krypton is destroyed by the local star exploding and engulfing the planet. The child crashes near Smallville, in Kansas, where he is found by the Kents, an older couple who is astonished when the child, who appears to be a toddler, is able to lift the truck when it falls off the jack. Ma and Pa Kent raise Clark as their own son, raised to be humble and good. When he is in high school, Pa dies of a heart attack and Clark goes into seclusion in Antarctica where he accidentally creates a fortress of ice and crystal using a piece of his homeworld (kryptonite).

After assimilating the knowledge of his destroyed homeworld, Clark leaves his Fortress Of Solitude for Metropolis, where he gets a job with the newspaper The Daily Planet. There, he meets Lois Lane, a spunky reporter. After subtly thwarting a mugger, Clark Kent decides to fight crime seriously as his alter-ego, Superman. In addition to rescuing Lois Lane from a helicopter accident, Superman (as she eventually names him) stops petty criminals, rescues cats, and saves the President when his airplane has a mechanical malfunction. While Superman begins his ascent into the public consciousness and forms a bond with Lois Lane, under Metropolis, Lex Luthor hatches a vile scheme to make most of California’s desert into valuable real estate by reshaping the West Coast using a guided missile attack!

The first thing that struck me about Superman, after the long build-up that actually made Jor-El and interesting and vital character and did not neglect the early years of Clark Kent’s life, was how much humor Clark Kent is able to infuse into the movie. Christopher Reeve is remarkably funny as Clark Kent in both a physical comedy way and in the delivery of his naïve and idealistic lines. While Lois Lane has a running joke about misspelling words, it is Reeve and co-star Jackie Cooper (The Daily Planet editor Perry White) who have to deliver the punchlines and they are actually very funny with their deliveries.

The problem, though, with a monolithic good character is that they have to have a villain who raises their stature through their own evil motivations. Lex Luthor is the villain of Superman, but he is written with all the subtlety of a gorilla and little of the intelligence one expects from Lex Luthor. Luthor’s scheme is a surprisingly good one: he wants to use test missiles to blow up the San Andreas Fault to sink the most valuable real estate in the world into the ocean to make the worthless desert of eastern California (which he has bought up dirt cheap) the most valuable commercial property as a result. But how Lex Luthor refers to himself as a villain seriously undermines his own credibility. As Quark on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine notes in one episode, people who are involved in extralegal operations do not call themselves nefarious.

Moreover, there is no clear (in story) reason why Lex Luthor would tolerate his bumbling, idiotic sidekick, Otis. Otis is there for obvious comic relief and as a means to have Lex Luthor deliver exposition for his plans in advance of his confrontation with Superman, but smart people tend to surround themselves with smart, capable people who have the skills that they lack, but need. Lex Luthor does not need an idiotic lackey, he needs a highly functional assistant to has intelligence, but not ambition. Otis is anything but that. While Ned Beatty, who played utterly serious and functional on Homicide: Life On The Street (reviewed here!) exceptionally well, pulls off dumb and goofy in Superman it does not make his character of Otis any better.

While Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman lend instant credibility and stature to the film, much of the film rests on the acting strength of Christopher Reeve, Margo Kidder, and Jeff East. Jeff East plays the young Clark Kent and he does a masterful job of making Kal-El seem human and willing and eager to learn the morals of Ma and Pa Kent. East has the task of selling the idea that Clark Kent’s time in Smallville, Kansas formed him into a functional adult who would still have an idealism and goodness to him that came out even in his mundane identity of Clark Kent. East sells Kent as deeply human and tremendously good, having a difficult time understanding why he must limit himself to “pass.” He sets up Christopher Reeve with a strong foundation.

Reeve bursts onto the screen with a goofiness and physical presence that is disarming. He spouts off some of the most idealistic dialogue of all time and makes it seem like it is coming from a real person, which is quite a feat. He also holds his own as Superman, embodying a man with a physical power and sense of invincibility, without arrogance, that is exceptional. He and Margot Kidder have great on-screen chemistry and they make a charming screen couple.

While Richard Donner’s direction is fine and the long movie moves along at a pace that is reasonable, the editing by Stuart Baird is hardly extraordinary. There are any number of obvious and awkward cuts that pull momentum and undermine the flow of the film. I was impressed, however, how the miniature effects held up surprisingly well and how, for a wholesome film with a monolithic good protagonist, Superman still managed to engage.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman & Robin
Supergirl
Wonder Woman

7/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Manhunt In A Closed Course: How 16 Blocks Keeps The Viewer Interested

The Good: Decent acting, Excellent pacing, Good characters
The Bad: Somewhat improbable circumstances, especially on the character front
The Basics: As a police detective and his prisoner flee through New York hunted by corrupt cops bent on preventing the witness from testifying, the viewer becomes more and more engaged.


In traditional warfare, as I've become accustomed to it with playing Risk, there comes a turning point where the aggressor has a significant disadvantage in that the side that goes on the defensive, when bottled up, has the most concentration and power. That is, at a certain point when one has one's enemy virtually surrounded, the problem becomes breaking through their lines because all of their forces are in one place. It's a daunting prospect. From the opening moments of the chase in 16 Blocks, this is a nagging concern on the viewer.

Detective Jack Mosely, a washed-up police detective, is assigned the mundane task of transporting a witness who will make the New York City District Attorney's big anti-cop corruption case. Mosely, half-drunk in the morning, soon finds himself on the run with Eddie, his witness. Mosely and Eddie are being hunted vigorously by a squadron of cops and police detectives who are likely to be indicted if Eddie is allowed to testify before the grand jury. As the clock ticks down for the jury's tenure to expire, Mosely and Eddie must flee through the streets, subways and buildings of New York City for the sixteen blocks from the lock-up to the hall of justice.

The thing is, 16 Blocks is a fairly standard chase movie. Once the attempt is made on Eddie and Jack makes his choice to go up against the corrupt cops that Eddie will implicate, the stakes are all set. From that moment on, Eddie and Jack are running against the clock and running for their lives. And one of the nagging ideas on the back of every viewer who is awake has to be the overall tactic. Frank Nugent, the leader of the corrupt cops who is looking to silence Eddie, knows exactly where Eddie and Jack are headed.

The way the movie escalates and resolves, creates a problem with suspension of disbelief. That is to say that if the plot either had no time limit or if the two were simply fugitives from the law, 16 Blocks would make perfect sense; the police would be motivated to chase them down throughout New York City to bring them to justice. But instead, this movie focuses on two people getting to a specific location. The rules of warfare would seem to indicate that the smartest tactic would be to surround the hall of justice where the grand jury is meeting and prevent the pair from getting in. There's no reason to chase, they know exactly where their prey are headed.

And for the most rational argument, "Well, maybe these police officers don't want to shed blood in the hall of justice," that argument is buggered by the action of the movie. Of course, cinematically, it's much more exciting to chase the pair through the streets and buildings, near subways and on buses. But conceptually, it makes no sense. In fact, in raising the stakes, escalating the action through the streets en route to the hall of justice, so many people become involved as to make suspension of disbelief almost impossible.

In simpler terms, as Jack and Eddie flee, kill in self-defense, take hostages and make the spectacle more and more public, 16 Blocks becomes less credible on a character level for every ancillary character in the movie. Yes, facing indictment is a bad thing. What's worse is losing an entire police force as opposed to only six or ten officers. As elements begin to escalate and characters who are not corrupt - like the police negotiator - continue to enter the story, the reality of the situation begins to become more and more obscured, almost to the point of parody.

What keeps the movie grounded are the three main characters. Frank is clearly fighting for his professional life. As his chase of Jack and Eddie escalates, it is easy to see him losing control of the situation and his views on the simple morality of "the ends justify the means" begins to slip. In representing the villain, we are finally faced with a movie where the adversary is at least as intelligent and resourceful as the protagonist and that is instantly engaging.

Eddie is annoying but consistent. He is a man who believes people can change and while I usually like darker endings to movies, I have to say I preferred the theatrical ending to the alternate ending on the DVD if for no other reason than the dialogue Eddie delivers via voice over is so much more interesting. But Eddie is no saint and the movie does an excellent job of keeping him viable, morally questionable and interesting, even if his near-constant babbling is annoying.

Jack Mosely begins the movie as a character that is very Sipowicz-esque. Watching 16 Blocks is suggestive of NYPD Blue's Andy Sipowicz prior to the series premiere. I suppose that's the strength of the cultural icon that watching 16 Blocks is immediately evocative of that type of aging, half-drunk detective character. Mosely's character, worn down by Eddie throughout the hours of their association, is brilliantly dynamic, though the viewer has to wait for the most telling moments of his character until almost the end of the movie.

What keeps the characters working is the quality of the acting. David Morse is menacing and clever as Frank. Mos Def creates a character who is instantly memorable as Eddie. His ability to deliver a fast-talking lisp is incredible and that it never slips throughout the movie is impressive.

It is Bruce Willis whose character is focused on the most. Despite the somewhat goofy look to him - think 12 Monkeys after he's glued on the mustache - Willis creates a character that is distinct and different from all others he has played. As he limps along, we see no hint of the charisma that made him likable in other roles. He is cold and he has the feeling of being dead inside that is masterfully portrayed and projected.

All in all, 16 Blocks is solid and satisfying even as its premise begins to be warped by the outrageous circumstances of the chase. It's certainly worth a viewing.

For other works with Mos Def, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy
Monster’s Ball

7/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |