Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

Directed by: Richard Donner, Richard Lester

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay), David Newman (screenplay), Leslie Newman (screenplay)


There's a lot of history and controversy  regarding the multiple versions of "Superman II." The version I watched for this review is the "Richard Donner Cut," which more closely aligns with the original vision for the film. The original theatrical release had two directors due to some conflict between Donner (who directed the first movie) and the producers.

Overall, it's a pretty straight forward superhero flick. Very enjoyable. I've never seen the "theatrical" cut of the film, so I can't make a direct comparison.

I was surprised by the amount of emotional turmoil that Superman experiences in this film. He's torn between his love for Lois Lane and the powers he was given. This tension gives Superman a much deeper and more complex personality, often missing from most superhero stories.

Superman: The Movie

Directed by:  Richard Donner

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay); David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton (screenplay)

Superman created by: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster







Who doesn't love a good superhero movie?  And what better superhero to put in a film than the ultimate American comic-culture symbol of "Superman?"  Let's face it: Superman rocks, and Richard Donner's film, though imperfect, ushered in a new era for superheroes.

I hadn't seen "Superman" since I was a kid, but I've been going through a comic book kick lately, and when I saw the Blu-Ray for sale, I grabbed it.

A bit of background: After about a ten year hiatus, I'm starting to read comic books again.  Growing up, I was never a huge Superman fan.  It was hard to get behind a hero who could do anything, save anyone, and never made a mistake.  Superman never felt like he was accessible.  I much preferred some of the more imperfect heroes, whose lives and adventures were a little more relatable (though never quite realistic).  Getting back into comics now, I've been surprised that I'm able to appreciate Superman much more.  Though he's still "perfect," I'm better able to understand his character's complexity, and how he struggles to navigate the gray areas in a world where things are never as black-and-white as he'd want.

All that to say: I was jazzed to re-watch "Superman" and see what I had missed.

I was surprised at how much of the movie is devoted to Superman's back-story, both his pre-Earth history as the last son of Krypton and his childhood as the adopted child of the Kent family.  It's a significant chunk of the movie before he begins to fly, and even longer before he sheds his Clark Kent (Reeve) shell and reveals himself to Metropolis.  His past is laid out in very particular detail, lest anything get past the audience.

These details, though well-intentioned, are what hold the movie up at several points.  It's a long time before we meet Superman's chief antagonist Lex Luthor (Hackman), and even longer before Luthor's plans begin to unfold.  A lot of background is given to establish the character of Lois Lane (Kidder), and her brashness is hammered home several times more than necessary.

But it's all worth it when Superman finally saves the day for the first of many times.  I mean, come on, he flies through the air!  Has X-ray vision!  Ice cold breath!

(And, just an FYI, there are some big spoilers ahead, though I'm betting you could have figured out the ending on your own.)  Luthor manages to put Superman in quite a spot, forcing Superman to choose between saving two coasts at once.  It seems impossible!  In fact, it is impossible, and - gasp - Lois Lane dies before Superman could get to her.  But, this is a Superman story, and Superman always overcomes evil, and so, despite the voice-over warnings of his father (Brando), he manages to turn back time and re-write history just enough so that he can save Lois.

And therein lies why Superman is both amazing, and hard to take.  How can you not love a superhero who, in order to save one person, would change the rotation of the entire planet?  Yet, at the same time, how can you feel any tension or drama when you know that Superman, if he wants, can just reverse time?

There's a lot of religious (specifically Christian) symbolism thrown into this movie as well.  None of it is subtle, and some of it is so blatant as to be obnoxious, such as Brando's narration when Superman discovers his family history.

In any case, "Superman" does a good job of bringing the Superman mythology to the film medium.  Just be prepared.  Superman wins.  Superman always wins.  That's what makes him Superman.

And that's why this movie is pretty darned good.

The Wild One

Today I watched the 1953 motorcycle gang classic "The Wild One." The movie was directed by Laslo Benedek and stars Marlon Brando, Mary Murphy, and Lee Marvin. The story is loosely based on a short story which, itself, was loosely based on the actual events of a real motorcycle gang riot in 1947.

The film begins with the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club - identified on their jackets by a skull and crossbones logo, with the crossbones replaced by engine pistons - rolling into an unnamed small town. The leader of the BRMC is Johnny Strabler (Brando), and he quickly falls in love with the local beauty and cafe waitress Kathy Bleeker (Murphy), who has very little experience with the world beyond the town borders. A tentative peace exists between the townspeople and the BRMC, moderated by the local sheriff who is simply trying to avoid a riot. This peace is shattered when a rival motorcycle gang, The Beatles (long before they were a band in Liverpool, apparently) arrives in town, led by Chino (Marvin). The new gang starts a bit of trouble, leading to Chino's arrest. The Beatles then begin to terrorize the town, putting a conservative townsman into a prison cell and threatening to rape Kathy, until Johnny shows up to rescue her. Their romance blossoms briefly, but ultimately she rejects him. When he returns her to town, Johnny finds that the people of the town have become an angry mob ready to kill the next motorcyclist they see. In his attempt to get away, Johnny is hit with a tire iron, and his uncontrolled motorcycle kills an innocent man. Johnny is let off the manslaughter charge on the condition that he and his gang never return, but refuses to directly thank those who helped him. He stops briefly to say good-bye to Kathy before he rolls out of town.

This movie is amazing in its simplicity, serving mainly as a vehicle to highlight Marlon Brando. The plot itself is relatively thin, with almost too much time being spent trying to emphasize the hooliganism of the two motorcycle gangs without developing any of the background characters. Almost the entire cast is shallow and static, with spoken lines strategically used to reveal what we need to know about the characters' motivations.

Yet, at the same time, Brando is at his dark and brooding best. His performance of Johnny is visibly torn between his primary rebellious nature and his romantic feelings for Kathy. Johnny's deep-seeded hatred for authority is clear in his refusal to cooperate with the sheriff, even though it would reveal the truth of what happened during the riot. Brando, in "The Wild One," produced a new kind of cool and, in a way, showed that emotional instability and alienation from the world could be a sign of personal strength and leadership.

The movie, in terms of theme, essentially set the stage for "Easy Rider." There is an obvious tension between the conservative townspeople and the outlaw motorcycle gangs. The townspeople are so caught up in the ideas of law and tradition and respect that they are even willing to go outside the law to prove their point. Meanwhile the motorcyclists are simply trying to get along in a world they have rejected and which has rejected them. It is when these two forces - one of constraint and one of recklessness - clash that the two sides of our society become painfully evident. Although "The Wild One" ultimately ends with the suggestion that these two groups can co-exist in a "you go your way, we'll go ours" way, we are left to wonder, especially in our modern society, whether such a paradigm can be sustained.

The Men

I just finished watching Fred Zinnemann's 1950 film "The Men." The movie is most famous for being Marlon Brando's first starring role.

The movie begins, very briefly, with Ken (Brando) sustaining a gunshot wound in the back in World War II combat. From there, the setting shifts to a veteran's hospital filled with paraplegic veterans trying to rehabilitate, where we are introduced to the brutally blunt and honest Dr. Brock (Everett Sloane) who tries to prepare these men for the reality of their lives without use of their legs while also trying to give them hope for living rich, fulfilling lives. Over the course of the movie, we get to know the men in the ward and what motivates them as well as their personal scars and ghosts. Ken is motivated to strengthen his boy as he attempts to re-kindle his relationship with Ellen (Teresa Wright) - his fiance from before the war. Eventually, the two get married, but his emotional instability flares up as they move into their new apartment and he leaves her. Ken goes on a binge and nearly kills himself in a car accident, which leads to him being kicked out of the rehabilitation ward. As Ken leaves, Dr. Brock gives him a little pep talk and convinces Ken to give marriage another shot. The movie ends with Ken visiting Ellen and asking her to give him another chance.

For his first film performance, Brando acts like a seasoned veteran. Apparently, he took his method acting so seriously, that he actually spent a month in a veteran's hospital to prepare for this part. Sloane was also masterful at coming off as crass and mean at first, so that, as a viewer, you come to hate him and the way he treats his patients. Yet, by the end, he has shown that he was doing it all so that his patients could live full lives after leaving his care without kidding themselves as to the reality of their condition.

Although artfully done, the movie comes off as a bit hallow. The background characters are too far in the background, and their personal demons seem a bit forced - such as the clownish gambler whose father is obviously a boozing gambler. Although we realize that Ellen deeply loves Ken, we never really get the chance to find out why or what she sees in him (or why she insists on trying to make it work even after it is painfully obvious that he would rather wallow in his injury). Even the most dynamic character of Dr. Brock remains shrouded in a haze and we learn nothing of him except what we see.

From a contemporary perspective, it raises a few interesting issues which we rarely encounter these days - such as the long-term effects of a major war on a country. Yes, there are many wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, but these numbers are nowhere near the scale that was seen during the World Wars. After Germany and Japan surrendered in 1945, thousands of wounded soldiers returned to find their lives broken, shattered, and merely a shadow of what they had expected before the war. This movie somewhat effectively demonstrates this problem which impacted our country at the time, but is mostly swept under the rug and not discussed today.