@@cartooningfanart Its not way more mature. Both films are made by passionate directors that loved the character. If u cant enjoy both you are missing out big time.
I was in Hawaii in 78, having been there since 73. I was returning home in 3 days, and didn't even know they had made a film. I ended up seeing it that Friday, and then again on Sunday before coming back to Virginia. After the first time through those awesome credits at the beginning, someone stood up near the front row and yelled, "I'M BLIND! I CAN'T SEE THE MOVIE!!!"... Funny as hell, I'll never forget it. It became my favorite movie of all time.
Old comment I know, but how does turning back time directly affect the release of the Kryptonians? It feels much more like a coincidence rather than a direct consequence of Superman’s selfish actions. It was throwing the missile that released the Kryptonians, not turning back time. Am I missing something?
@@kaankaraca2001 Lol. He isnt supposed to turn the earth back in 1. Only 2. Be sure to watch the Richard Donner cut of both SUPERMAN THE MOVIE AND SUPERMAN 2 released in 2006. If you never saw the 2006 Superman film starring Christopher Reeve you never saw the true Superman story. Superman The Movie - 2hr 31 minute version Superman 2 the Richard Donner cut - 1hr 55 minutes. Together explains everything. The only mess up is with Superman the movie BC he was supposed to Save Lois, and she never dies. Definitely watch these. They are far superior to the theatrical versions
@@integrity101 Oh I have watched the Donner cut many times, don't worry. I think the problem is that the missile causing the Kryptonians to be freed is never treated as a consequence in the movie, but maybe that's because Donner never got to reshoot the scenes he wanted to shoot, or finish the scenes he couldn't shoot. Nevertheless, the correlation wasn't made in the movie.
The Donner Superman has a great since of humor about itself.After he catches the bullet meant for Lois, he holds it in his hand, LOOKS AT THE CAMERA and smiles. (Superman now has the power to break the fourth wall). This repeats in the diner scene at the end of II. Clark beats up the a-hole trucker, says he's been working out, and then briefly glances at the camera and raises his eyebrows. a big "wink" to the audience. I love it.
Are you going to do a superhero rewind style review of man of steel? I know you've already done a review of it but I think a superhero rewind review would be cool :)
The only problem I have the movie is Lex's plan. Lex's plan only works if a certain one hits while the other is a decoy that does nothing to help Lex and his plan. Its not like Lex plans on Superman to get rid of the decoy first.
The better ending would have been to race back in time to divert both missiles and save everyone, except, as the Donner Cut for Superman 2 shows with the missile he did catch, the missile that originally had brought about Lois' death becomes the missile that frees Zod et al and thus the film ends as a cliff hanger with Zod yelling out, "Free!" and the three bad guys aiming for Earth. Close curtain! Nice set up for Superman 2 which should have picked up immediately after the first.
Great review but there was consequence to his actions.. The missle he sends to space explodes & free's Zod , Ursa & Non from the phantom zone. Of course we didn't know any of this until the Donner version of Superman 2 was released!!
It's kind of amazing that no matter who plays Superman, Reeves will always be the template for that character. Just goes to show the mark he left in these films.
Actually, the decision to become Superman isn't necessarily Jor-El's. Look closely at the scene where Clark is in the Arctic and reaches into his pack for the crystal to build the fortress, one can see his pack has "something" made of red, blue, and yellow fabric.
i have to ask this because me and my friends argue this constantly to the point we start fighting. who would win in a fight superman or goku from dbz. i personally believe superman but all of my friends say goku, and they even say superman would lose in a fight against any character in dbz. whats your opinion?
Sorry for taking a year to see this, but I only just saw it. Superman advertised in a newspaper that he can't see through lead. He never knew about Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor just ASSUMED that the green metal A) was from Superman's home world, and B) would kill Superman despite being native to his home world (you'd think it'd be like trying to defeat Aquaman with water). So I have to agree with Tobbe; the kryptonite weakness just has no set-up aside from being ripped straight from the comics.
I assume that Superman couldn't get to both missiles in time because he was still recoving from the effects of the Kryptonite neckless that Lex Luthor put on him.
Just seen it again. I didn't think much of it as a kid and preferred the sequel. Yet now, this has just blown me away. Every thing about it is a masterpiece. John Williams is a genius coming up with the 'Krypton' theme.
One thing I cannot understand about this movie is how does Lex learn about Kryptonite?? Superman doesn't know about it and It almost magically appears the way I see it...
9:00 To be fair, the only reason Luthor fired those missiles in the first place was because of Superman. So, you could argue that he wasn't really interfering, per se, but rather, correcting the interference that his presence had already caused.
I personally think that this movie is better than Dark Knight. Maybe it's just because I am a HUGE Superman fan and I never really got into Batman. What do you think Captain Logan?
@Geekvolution Well, no, as I watched the movie, he only mentioned his inability to see through lead. I don't think Superman even KNEW about kryptonite until he found it in Luthor's lair. My explanation for Luthor's knowledge of Kryptonite is... his evil genius. He can put a lot of stuff together rather quickly. E.g. in the 2nd movie, he figures out really quickly how to use the crystals in the Fortress of Solitute. He's just a genius that way.
I think this is one of those films that you were slightly biased on, 4 out of 4 I think is too high a score after you pointed out its flaws and though it may have introduced superhero films in the 70s, I think even without it SOMEONE would have made a superhero film by now
Christopher Reeve was, and still is, the one and only Superman. "Superman Returns" & "Man Of Steel" pale in comparison to Mr. Reeve's performance. The latest actor, playing the role, simply does not embody the Reeve Superman at all. And I could really care less about these newer Superman films. For it's few faults, "Superman The Movie" made me believe a man could fly and it's still the greatest superhero film ever made. R.I.P. Chris.p.s. I don't want to leave out the legendary George Reeves. He too embodied Superman perfectly. But then, that was another era.
Someone should make a silent black and white film about Martian Manhunter's early life on Mars, from his birth until the destruction of the entire civilization, before he comes to Earth and joins the Justice League. Crazy, but it could work.
I do agree somewhat that Superman should have easily stopped Lex. But, in its defence Lex is the first person is standup to Superman. I honestly do not believe Superman expected Lex to have Kryptonite up his sleeve. The same plot device is a problem in Superman Returns though as it shows that Superman never learned from his mistakes. Also, as far as traveling through time, he also heard Jonathan´s words as well. I always saw this as Jor-El´s teachings vs Jonathans and he chose Jonathan´s.
About the lead thing: Superman had no idea Kryptonite existed. If there's suddenly someone carrying stuff around in a bunch of lead-lined boxes, than they're probably up to no good. In that way, Superman would easily be able to identify people who are trying to slip something past him.
But the reason he reveals it to a reporter is not only he trust her but Superman want to prove that he is only honest and only say the truth. To set an example.
Good review as always man. This and Superman 2 are probably the best super hero movies ever. And the 4 Reeve films are the super hero movies I watch the most. Yea I know 3 and especially 4 get hate but I actually think 3 is a good movie just not as good as the first 2. And the 4th is ok I don’t think it’s as bad as people make it out to be. Superman the movie a plus Superman 2 a Superman 3 c plus Superman 4 c minus
Ok as for the ending, the best defence is to remember that earlier on in the film Clark was distraught after the death of Jonathan because despite all of his powers, he couldn't save him. This is a flashback too just before Superman saves Jonathan. He'd already lost someone he'd cared about, now because he did have the power, he wasn't going to do so again. Selfish yes, but just as human as well. Also, IMO this film makes all other superhero movies (Including Dark Knight) look mediocre.
@Tobbe9975432 Well, everybody would know about it if Lois had already published her article and mentioned what Superman said about Kryptonite... that's why I thought it was really kinda silly of him to bring that up in an interview. -Captain Logan
Superman only went superfast to change time because he loved Lois Lane enough to violate his one big rule from his father. He couldn't go fast because enough to catch the two missiles because he would have violated Jor El's rule. But his anger at the death of course led him to do that anyway.
I've never understood where the line is with regards to interfering in human history. Most notably, one of the first things he does as Superman is save the president of the United States. How does that not affect history?
What could have been a good ending was if by turning back time Superman somehow used that other missile to inadvertently free Zod or if he created a temporal paradox which freed Zod. in Doctor Who time works in such a way humans cannot conceive of and can do all kinds of werid things like that
I just watched this again for the first time since I was a kid. Here are my thoughts: -The opening is out of place. Too much screen time spent on the jailing of three random characters and the destruction of the world. +Brando is awesome -The Smallville scenes were a bit thin. +Some of the cinematography was nice though. -Not enough lasting conflict is set up to suck you into the story, and it results in a somewhat lethargic pace and a not too compelling story overall. Until Lex shows up and unveils a plan, what is the audience hoping to see resolved? +Reeve is truly awesome, as is almost all of his dialogue. +Hero montage +The Clark/Lois stuff is great -...though Lois's inner monologue/poem is awful. -The scenes of Lex in his hideout are cartoony...but not fun. Just a chore to watch. +Except the scene of Supes in the water. That was great. -I don't mind the time-travel power itself so much as its use in the story. It squanders a lot of what was set up previously in the movie. I don't think my problem with it is due to 'high expectations because the movie was so good'. I can't say whether or not they could have ended the movie in a way that was on par with the way it opened, I do think there are much much better ways they could have climaxed the movie. +Last shot is awesome. +The score is awesome. So a 5.5/10 for me. I doubt I'll be watching the movie again because I don't think it's a very engaging or satisfying 2-hour story, but I'm sure I'll probably re-watch some of Reeve's scenes on RUclips. Funnily enough, for me, MOS fixed a lot of the problems I had with this movie by tying the origin, antagonist, and protagonist together (from a plot and thematic standpoint). Plus, there was more conflict set-up earlier with Clark's character to hook the viewer. For me, MOS had the much better overall story, while STM got by entirely with its charming individual scenes, which is pretty impressive still.
Superman: The Movie isn't like any other superhero movie. It was more of an experience than your standard action film. However, I still feel that it has a solid three act story. A lot of the movie is epic set pieces, character development, clever and funny scenes, and set up for Lex Luthor's plot, but there is still plenty of conflict. Clark is struggling at first with his otherworldly abilities. Kids at school tease him. His father dies and Clark feels guilty even though it wasn't his fault. He finds out he has an alien father and that he's the last of his kind. This is all conflict. It's easy to get hooked into his character because we know he's a nice kid who just so happens to be a super-powered alien. It's his inner struggle and how he deals with it that provides the conflict. And Lex reveals early on that he has a plan and that it will be "the crime of the century." That's what the audience wants to be resolved. They're watching this and thinking "Oh man. Lex is planning something evil. I wonder what it is. I wonder how Superman will stop him." But when Superman reveals himself to the world, Lex's plan is now in danger and must take action in order to prevent Superman from foiling it. As for the pacing, yes, the pacing is slow, but considering that this movie is meant to be an epic, the pacing NEEDS to be slow because there's a lot happening with a lot of characters and so it must be shown slowly in order for us to soak it all in, otherwise it would just feel rushed. Personally, I give this movie a 9.3/10. Anything less, in my opinion, is an insult, but opinions exist for a reason. I just hope this helped make more sense for you.
I don't agree that Superman is SF. It's fantasy done with as much consistency as you could expect for a fantasy, but there are still some huge jumps in consistency, logic and any kind of science. It's done with respect and conviction.
Man of Steel could have been something special if Goyer and the other writers actually seemed to care about the story and the character, which didn't seem to be the case. What few good ideas and story arcs Man of Steel had were never explored enough. The backstory told through flashbacks was nice, but they were spliced together in such a disjointed way that I could not get emotionally invested into them like I could in Batman Begins for example.
The idea that the ending was cause of adrenaline is ridiculous. So Superman didn't get angry enough when millions of lives were in danger, but he was when his "girlfriend" died. I mean I was sad when Lois died and I'm sure it would've affected him greatly, but that seems kinda selfish of him.
Why does time travel count as changing the course of human events when other things do not? Superman causes things to happen just like anyone else. When you cause things to happen you also cause other, contrary things to not happen. Isn't he changing the course of human events with any action? If superman can go back in time and save someones life wouldn't he be obligated to do so?
When I saw this in the theater in 1978, I thought Zod et al. would be released from the Phantom Zone in the sequel BECAUSE Superman changed time. Alas, no such continuity.
Be sure to watch the 5th superman film starring Chris Reeve released in 2006. No typos above. You read that right. If u never saw it you never saw the full chris reeve superman story.
I think most people were disappointed with Man of Steel because their expectations were set ridiculously high especially with names like Christopher Nolan as Producer and Zack Snyder as director. But pound for pound MoS is what it is, it is a summer blockbuster with some nice ideas that were never fleshed out as well as they could have, saying that MoS is anything more than a summer blockbuster and is a masterpiece is just pushing it too much. I liked MoS but it was no masterpiece.
@ShadowGunner82 yeah the ending is WAy out there but iv come round 2 it bcos a) its so ridiculous its cool and b) there r actually other trip ups in this movie as well that seemed to be some kind of bi-product of adapating a super hero comic book and doing a film like this in the 70s. an example would be when Lois Lane is shown t be a little kid while superman is a teenager or Superman changing into his costume while falling out of a window. they don't break the film but they show its flawed
I agree with you on this. This film is incredibly outdated an tacky, the funny thing is, I think that's why most people like it. It takes them back to a more innocent time. The bad part is that the world is not innocent and in order for a Superman film to work now, he has to be a Man of action not just a boy scout. People hate on MOS but don't realize that the movie is truer to the last 25 years or so of Superman comics. It borrows heavily from stories like Birthright, and Byrnes Man of steel..
I just rewathed this review. I feel the ending if Superman was smething the WB or CW show Smallville got right. In Reconning in Season 5 Clark has a chance to go back in time, but Jar El cautioned Kal El that one event will occur to replace another. He goes back to save his gf which then causes his father to have a heart attack. He then talks to his mother about tue choice he made and he understood that even though he wanted to save both he couldnt.
2:48 That begs the question... why is it, in Science Fiction, that earth is always portrayed as the most primitive planet in the universe? I mean, intelligent life started on our planet about as quickly as it possibly could, given our current understanding of cosmology... so it's not like anyone else could have gotten a head start on us, and had more time to develop their technoloy!
I wish Man of Steel was like the Richard Donner films. I was disappointed in Man of Steel and I blame Goyer for all it's faults. You're the expert...am I a jerk for not liking Man of Steel as much as everyone else?
I hate him turning back time. It just undoes what we had just witnessed. One of the worst examples of killing a character then bringing them back to life.
I really think this movie was the best interpretation of Superman sofar, together with all it's flaws. However, because of those flaws, I would give the first Superman movie a 3 out of 4.
I personally did not enjoy this movie. I do understand that it was revolutionary for its time but i personally believe they attempted to sell this movie on its effects which obviously did not age very well in my opinion but i feel like the hour long origins session was fairly unnecessary. But that's just my personal opinion
Maybe Superman just isn´t your taste. The origins was very necessary imo, it linked the father/ son Superman-Jor-El relationship of which this film is about. Had the first hour just been the origin and then just a Superman action flick, then I would have agreed but as it has an importance throughout the film then we´re gonna have to agree to disagree.
2:44 -- Draco Malfoy Consequences... thinking too hard. Superman (classically) is first and foremost about how super superman is. Look at all the impossible stuff he can do! He's super!
Hey that is a great review like always. I enjoy your super hero reviews and I'm looking forward to your review on the latest superhero movies. You know I have a channel where I review movies and I have a review of this movie and some superhero movies so I don't know if you would be interested to check it out and see what you think. Good review again. :)
Your far too forgivable with your rating on this movie, just bcause it's the foundation of the genre your analising on Rewind. Go for the quality and the weith of flaws, and that way it will be critically sharper, tighter and will have more credit, when you actually find a movie a 4 our of 4 quality.
To me this movie is allways running here and there between fantastic and terrible. And in every 10 minutes of it. I have high hope for Snyders and Nolans work. "Super Man" means: "Over Human", the possible future of Homo Sapiens, Homo Superiour. That makes his figure interesting. He's not indistruckable, and not just because of the green cryptonite. He's abbilities are given by the planets nature. That's why he's not a god.
I personally never like these films they got increasingly worse and more tack and tongue and cheek. The fact that Man of steel is more of an action film may alienate folks but im sorry there is more wrong with these films than with MOS. Marlon Brando's phoned in performance, Marrgot Kidder is a unappealing and superficial women and also unsympathetic to me she loves Supes because he has powers, that's it. Lex Luthors plans for real estate like really who does that.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The movie is 40 years old, this review is 10 years old and its still one of the best superhero movies and one of your best reviews
Because it seemed like a fun challenge for myself. And I had no idea there were as many as there are when I started!
-CL
Superman ( 1978 ) > Man Of Steel
Batman ( 1989 ) < The Dark Knight
Pretty accurate.
That's my list too.
No. Man of steel is realistic and a way more mature story. And the only superman story I can love
@@cartooningfanart
Its not way more mature. Both films are made by passionate directors that loved the character. If u cant enjoy both you are missing out big time.
I was in Hawaii in 78, having been there since 73. I was returning home in 3 days, and didn't even know they had made a film. I ended up seeing it that Friday, and then again on Sunday before coming back to Virginia. After the first time through those awesome credits at the beginning, someone stood up near the front row and yelled, "I'M BLIND! I CAN'T SEE THE MOVIE!!!"... Funny as hell, I'll never forget it. It became my favorite movie of all time.
Christopher Reeve (R.I.P.) aka Superman-nuff said.Greatest casting ever!
You truly live up to your name.
Actually, there WERE consequences to his actions; the missile freed Zod and the Kryptonians, which came to Earth in the second movie.
Old comment I know, but how does turning back time directly affect the release of the Kryptonians? It feels much more like a coincidence rather than a direct consequence of Superman’s selfish actions. It was throwing the missile that released the Kryptonians, not turning back time. Am I missing something?
@@kaankaraca2001
Yea you are confused. Watch Richard Donners Superman 2 and the short 13 minute documentary.
@@integrity101 I can't even remember what I was confused about lol
@@kaankaraca2001
Lol. He isnt supposed to turn the earth back in 1. Only 2. Be sure to watch the Richard Donner cut of both SUPERMAN THE MOVIE AND SUPERMAN 2 released in 2006.
If you never saw the 2006 Superman film starring Christopher Reeve you never saw the true Superman story.
Superman The Movie - 2hr 31 minute version
Superman 2 the Richard Donner cut - 1hr 55 minutes.
Together explains everything. The only mess up is with Superman the movie BC he was supposed to Save Lois, and she never dies.
Definitely watch these. They are far superior to the theatrical versions
@@integrity101 Oh I have watched the Donner cut many times, don't worry. I think the problem is that the missile causing the Kryptonians to be freed is never treated as a consequence in the movie, but maybe that's because Donner never got to reshoot the scenes he wanted to shoot, or finish the scenes he couldn't shoot. Nevertheless, the correlation wasn't made in the movie.
Doesn't Superman interfere with the couse of human advance everytime he saves someone, even if time travel is not involved?
Huh, never thought of it that way.
Me neighter, before right before I wrote it...
I think what Jor-El meant by interfering with human history is don't get involved with government. You know, like in Superman 4
KryptonSunRevival Yeah, and look how that turned out.
The Donner Superman has a great since of humor about itself.After he catches the bullet meant for Lois, he holds it in his hand, LOOKS AT THE CAMERA and smiles. (Superman now has the power to break the fourth wall). This repeats in the diner scene at the end of II. Clark beats up the a-hole trucker, says he's been working out, and then briefly glances at the camera and raises his eyebrows. a big "wink" to the audience. I love it.
Are you going to do a superhero rewind style review of man of steel? I know you've already done a review of it but I think a superhero rewind review would be cool :)
The only problem I have the movie is Lex's plan. Lex's plan only works if a certain one hits while the other is a decoy that does nothing to help Lex and his plan. Its not like Lex plans on Superman to get rid of the decoy first.
The better ending would have been to race back in time to divert both missiles and save everyone, except, as the Donner Cut for Superman 2 shows with the missile he did catch, the missile that originally had brought about Lois' death becomes the missile that frees Zod et al and thus the film ends as a cliff hanger with Zod yelling out, "Free!" and the three bad guys aiming for Earth. Close curtain! Nice set up for Superman 2 which should have picked up immediately after the first.
Great review but there was consequence to his actions.. The missle he sends to space explodes & free's Zod , Ursa & Non from the phantom zone. Of course we didn't know any of this until the Donner version of Superman 2 was released!!
Eventually, yes, I do want to get to that one.
-CL
It's kind of amazing that no matter who plays Superman, Reeves will always be the template for that character. Just goes to show the mark he left in these films.
Actually, the decision to become Superman isn't necessarily Jor-El's. Look closely at the scene where Clark is in the Arctic and reaches into his pack for the crystal to build the fortress, one can see his pack has "something" made of red, blue, and yellow fabric.
i have to ask this because me and my friends argue this constantly to the point we start fighting. who would win in a fight superman or goku from dbz. i personally believe superman but all of my friends say goku, and they even say superman would lose in a fight against any character in dbz. whats your opinion?
Sorry for taking a year to see this, but I only just saw it.
Superman advertised in a newspaper that he can't see through lead. He never knew about Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor just ASSUMED that the green metal A) was from Superman's home world, and B) would kill Superman despite being native to his home world (you'd think it'd be like trying to defeat Aquaman with water).
So I have to agree with Tobbe; the kryptonite weakness just has no set-up aside from being ripped straight from the comics.
I assume that Superman couldn't get to both missiles in time because he was still recoving from the effects of the Kryptonite neckless that Lex Luthor put on him.
hey cap, have you seen the how it should have ended for superman? You will probably like it
Man, I wish I had an experience like that with a movie.
Just seen it again. I didn't think much of it as a kid and preferred the sequel. Yet now, this has just blown me away. Every thing about it is a masterpiece. John Williams is a genius coming up with the 'Krypton' theme.
One thing I cannot understand about this movie is how does Lex learn about Kryptonite??
Superman doesn't know about it and It almost magically appears the way I see it...
9:00
To be fair, the only reason Luthor fired those missiles in the first place was because of Superman.
So, you could argue that he wasn't really interfering, per se, but rather, correcting the interference that his presence had already caused.
I personally think that this movie is better than Dark Knight. Maybe it's just because I am a HUGE Superman fan and I never really got into Batman. What do you think Captain Logan?
@Geekvolution Well, no, as I watched the movie, he only mentioned his inability to see through lead. I don't think Superman even KNEW about kryptonite until he found it in Luthor's lair.
My explanation for Luthor's knowledge of Kryptonite is... his evil genius. He can put a lot of stuff together rather quickly. E.g. in the 2nd movie, he figures out really quickly how to use the crystals in the Fortress of Solitute. He's just a genius that way.
It scared the crap out of me when scream in anger.
I think this is one of those films that you were slightly biased on, 4 out of 4 I think is too high a score after you pointed out its flaws and though it may have introduced superhero films in the 70s, I think even without it SOMEONE would have made a superhero film by now
Christopher Reeve was, and still is, the one and only Superman. "Superman Returns" & "Man Of Steel" pale in comparison to Mr. Reeve's performance. The latest actor, playing the role, simply does not embody the Reeve Superman at all. And I could really care less about these newer Superman films. For it's few faults, "Superman The Movie" made me believe a man could fly and it's still the greatest superhero film ever made. R.I.P. Chris.p.s. I don't want to leave out the legendary George Reeves. He too embodied Superman perfectly. But then, that was another era.
You are missing the point. If ya cant enjoy MOS you are missing out.
Someone should make a silent black and white film about Martian Manhunter's early life on Mars, from his birth until the destruction of the entire civilization, before he comes to Earth and joins the Justice League. Crazy, but it could work.
A better ending would have been that he caught both missiles but the second one opened the phantom zone,
@Geekvolution hey cl maybe he told her about the cant see through led thing because superman doesn't lie???
Yeah, its Jor-El... I saw it in December 1978.
I do agree somewhat that Superman should have easily stopped Lex. But, in its defence Lex is the first person is standup to Superman. I honestly do not believe Superman expected Lex to have Kryptonite up his sleeve. The same plot device is a problem in Superman Returns though as it shows that Superman never learned from his mistakes.
Also, as far as traveling through time, he also heard Jonathan´s words as well. I always saw this as Jor-El´s teachings vs Jonathans and he chose Jonathan´s.
About the lead thing: Superman had no idea Kryptonite existed. If there's suddenly someone carrying stuff around in a bunch of lead-lined boxes, than they're probably up to no good. In that way, Superman would easily be able to identify people who are trying to slip something past him.
But the reason he reveals it to a reporter is not only he trust her but Superman want to prove that he is only honest and only say the truth. To set an example.
Yeah, I knew it was him. Oh, and cool you saw it in '78. Most aren't so lucky to see history made.
Good review as always man. This and Superman 2 are probably the best super hero movies ever. And the 4 Reeve films are the super hero movies I watch the most. Yea I know 3 and especially 4 get hate but I actually think 3 is a good movie just not as good as the first 2. And the 4th is ok I don’t think it’s as bad as people make it out to be.
Superman the movie a plus
Superman 2 a
Superman 3 c plus
Superman 4 c minus
Ok as for the ending, the best defence is to remember that earlier on in the film Clark was distraught after the death of Jonathan because despite all of his powers, he couldn't save him. This is a flashback too just before Superman saves Jonathan. He'd already lost someone he'd cared about, now because he did have the power, he wasn't going to do so again. Selfish yes, but just as human as well.
Also, IMO this film makes all other superhero movies (Including Dark Knight) look mediocre.
@Tobbe9975432 Well, everybody would know about it if Lois had already published her article and mentioned what Superman said about Kryptonite... that's why I thought it was really kinda silly of him to bring that up in an interview.
-Captain Logan
Superman only went superfast to change time because he loved Lois Lane enough to violate his one big rule from his father. He couldn't go fast because enough to catch the two missiles because he would have violated Jor El's rule. But his anger at the death of course led him to do that anyway.
when are they gonna Make suprman movie with parasite atomic skull? heck id even see if it had live wire just make super man movie without lex and zod
I've never understood where the line is with regards to interfering in human history. Most notably, one of the first things he does as Superman is save the president of the United States. How does that not affect history?
My Top 5 superhero films:
5# Hellboy (Yeah, i think is that good)
4# Spider-Man 2
3# The Crow
2# Batman: Under the Red Hood
1# Superman
What could have been a good ending was if by turning back time Superman somehow used that other missile to inadvertently free Zod or if he created a temporal paradox which freed Zod. in Doctor Who time works in such a way humans cannot conceive of and can do all kinds of werid things like that
I just watched this again for the first time since I was a kid. Here are my thoughts:
-The opening is out of place. Too much screen time spent on the jailing of three random characters and the destruction of the world.
+Brando is awesome
-The Smallville scenes were a bit thin.
+Some of the cinematography was nice though.
-Not enough lasting conflict is set up to suck you into the story, and it results in a somewhat lethargic pace and a not too compelling story overall. Until Lex shows up and unveils a plan, what is the audience hoping to see resolved?
+Reeve is truly awesome, as is almost all of his dialogue.
+Hero montage
+The Clark/Lois stuff is great
-...though Lois's inner monologue/poem is awful.
-The scenes of Lex in his hideout are cartoony...but not fun. Just a chore to watch.
+Except the scene of Supes in the water. That was great.
-I don't mind the time-travel power itself so much as its use in the story. It squanders a lot of what was set up previously in the movie. I don't think my problem with it is due to 'high expectations because the movie was so good'. I can't say whether or not they could have ended the movie in a way that was on par with the way it opened, I do think there are much much better ways they could have climaxed the movie.
+Last shot is awesome.
+The score is awesome.
So a 5.5/10 for me. I doubt I'll be watching the movie again because I don't think it's a very engaging or satisfying 2-hour story, but I'm sure I'll probably re-watch some of Reeve's scenes on RUclips.
Funnily enough, for me, MOS fixed a lot of the problems I had with this movie by tying the origin, antagonist, and protagonist together (from a plot and thematic standpoint). Plus, there was more conflict set-up earlier with Clark's character to hook the viewer. For me, MOS had the much better overall story, while STM got by entirely with its charming individual scenes, which is pretty impressive still.
trha2222 I got next!
Superman: The Movie isn't like any other superhero movie. It was more of an experience than your standard action film. However, I still feel that it has a solid three act story. A lot of the movie is epic set pieces, character development, clever and funny scenes, and set up for Lex Luthor's plot, but there is still plenty of conflict.
Clark is struggling at first with his otherworldly abilities.
Kids at school tease him.
His father dies and Clark feels guilty even though it wasn't his fault.
He finds out he has an alien father and that he's the last of his kind.
This is all conflict. It's easy to get hooked into his character because we know he's a nice kid who just so happens to be a super-powered alien. It's his inner struggle and how he deals with it that provides the conflict.
And Lex reveals early on that he has a plan and that it will be "the crime of the century." That's what the audience wants to be resolved. They're watching this and thinking "Oh man. Lex is planning something evil. I wonder what it is. I wonder how Superman will stop him." But when Superman reveals himself to the world, Lex's plan is now in danger and must take action in order to prevent Superman from foiling it.
As for the pacing, yes, the pacing is slow, but considering that this movie is meant to be an epic, the pacing NEEDS to be slow because there's a lot happening with a lot of characters and so it must be shown slowly in order for us to soak it all in, otherwise it would just feel rushed.
Personally, I give this movie a 9.3/10. Anything less, in my opinion, is an insult, but opinions exist for a reason. I just hope this helped make more sense for you.
DamnFineCupOfCoffee I agree
Superman the movie must be watched with part 2.
Its one big 4.5 hour story. Its not really two movies.
I don't agree that Superman is SF. It's fantasy done with as much consistency as you could expect for a fantasy, but there are still some huge jumps in consistency, logic and any kind of science. It's done with respect and conviction.
Nicely done
Here's a better ending instead of just going after the missiles one at a time superman grabs one and throws it at the other
Why did you decide to review every superhero movie ever made?
Man of Steel could have been something special if Goyer and the other writers actually seemed to care about the story and the character, which didn't seem to be the case. What few good ideas and story arcs Man of Steel had were never explored enough. The backstory told through flashbacks was nice, but they were spliced together in such a disjointed way that I could not get emotionally invested into them like I could in Batman Begins for example.
@Geekvolution Really? You've NEVER thought of a better ending? *Cough, Donner's intentions, Cough*
The idea that the ending was cause of adrenaline is ridiculous. So Superman didn't get angry enough when millions of lives were in danger, but he was when his "girlfriend" died. I mean I was sad when Lois died and I'm sure it would've affected him greatly, but that seems kinda selfish of him.
Why does time travel count as changing the course of human events when other things do not? Superman causes things to happen just like anyone else. When you cause things to happen you also cause other, contrary things to not happen. Isn't he changing the course of human events with any action? If superman can go back in time and save someones life wouldn't he be obligated to do so?
Nice review
When I saw this in the theater in 1978, I thought Zod et al. would be released from the Phantom Zone in the sequel BECAUSE Superman changed time. Alas, no such continuity.
Be sure to watch the 5th superman film starring Chris Reeve released in 2006. No typos above. You read that right. If u never saw it you never saw the full chris reeve superman story.
I think you should review super
I think most people were disappointed with Man of Steel because their expectations were set ridiculously high especially with names like Christopher Nolan as Producer and Zack Snyder as director. But pound for pound MoS is what it is, it is a summer blockbuster with some nice ideas that were never fleshed out as well as they could have, saying that MoS is anything more than a summer blockbuster and is a masterpiece is just pushing it too much. I liked MoS but it was no masterpiece.
@ShadowGunner82 yeah the ending is WAy out there but iv come round 2 it bcos a) its so ridiculous its cool and b) there r actually other trip ups in this movie as well that seemed to be some kind of bi-product of adapating a super hero comic book and doing a film like this in the 70s. an example would be when Lois Lane is shown t be a little kid while superman is a teenager or Superman changing into his costume while falling out of a window. they don't break the film but they show its flawed
"THE GREATEST SUPERHERO FILM EVER MADE"!
p.s. Fine review.. :)
Actually 2001 a Space Odyssey came out in 1968 not in the late 70's
I agree with you on this. This film is incredibly outdated an tacky, the funny thing is, I think that's why most people like it. It takes them back to a more innocent time. The bad part is that the world is not innocent and in order for a Superman film to work now, he has to be a Man of action not just a boy scout. People hate on MOS but don't realize that the movie is truer to the last 25 years or so of Superman comics. It borrows heavily from stories like Birthright, and Byrnes Man of steel..
I just rewathed this review. I feel the ending if Superman was smething the WB or CW show Smallville got right. In Reconning in Season 5 Clark has a chance to go back in time, but Jar El cautioned Kal El that one event will occur to replace another. He goes back to save his gf which then causes his father to have a heart attack. He then talks to his mother about tue choice he made and he understood that even though he wanted to save both he couldnt.
Preach on brother!
2:48
That begs the question... why is it, in Science Fiction, that earth is always portrayed as the most primitive planet in the universe?
I mean, intelligent life started on our planet about as quickly as it possibly could, given our current understanding of cosmology... so it's not like anyone else could have gotten a head start on us, and had more time to develop their technoloy!
oh but superman did have to pay for his mistake, the price, having superman 3 and 4 made
I wish Man of Steel was like the Richard Donner films. I was disappointed in Man of Steel and I blame Goyer for all it's faults. You're the expert...am I a jerk for not liking Man of Steel as much as everyone else?
@Geekvolution
Too many flaws found to give it maximuum point.
There is are consequences for Superman turning back time.
Superman III and IV.
@MasterEliteSamChief I have and I loved it!
-CL
I hate him turning back time. It just undoes what we had just witnessed. One of the worst examples of killing a character then bringing them back to life.
Yet superhero movies continue to use time travel. Just get over it.
I really think this movie was the best interpretation of Superman sofar, together with all it's flaws. However, because of those flaws, I would give the first Superman movie a 3 out of 4.
Would you say that the Krypton portrayed in this universe is a type 1 on the Kardashev scale?
I personally did not enjoy this movie. I do understand that it was revolutionary for its time but i personally believe they attempted to sell this movie on its effects which obviously did not age very well in my opinion but i feel like the hour long origins session was fairly unnecessary. But that's just my personal opinion
2001 was a year before superman
10 yrs prior.
Maybe Superman just isn´t your taste.
The origins was very necessary imo, it linked the father/ son Superman-Jor-El relationship of which this film is about.
Had the first hour just been the origin and then just a Superman action flick, then I would have agreed but as it has an importance throughout the film then we´re gonna have to agree to disagree.
I want a director's cut of this with the original intended ending to got along with the Richard Donner cut of 2.
He saves lois. Lois never dies.. delete that scene and your good to go.
@qwuezalothus
I disagree, if not for the ending this film would be a 5 or 6 out of 4!
0:33: I yűwould punish steeling or bullying childrens with that kind of show. Or Adam West's Batman.
@gideonblackman
I can't look past the flaws of a movie, just because it's entertaining.
Did anyone else see that face in the clouds?
Marlon Brando ( Jor - El ).
That was meant for Captain Logan. Not you.
2:44 -- Draco Malfoy
Consequences... thinking too hard. Superman (classically) is first and foremost about how super superman is. Look at all the impossible stuff he can do! He's super!
Hey that is a great review like always. I enjoy your super hero reviews and I'm looking forward to your review on the latest superhero movies. You know I have a channel where I review movies and I have a review of this movie and some superhero movies so I don't know if you would be interested to check it out and see what you think. Good review again. :)
I thought the spiderman film was a better film than this. The origin was more fun and there wasn't stupid humour where it wasn't needed.
Yeah i know what you mean and yeah superman isnt my taste im more of a batman guy
Your far too forgivable with your rating on this movie, just bcause it's the foundation of the genre your analising on Rewind. Go for the quality and the weith of flaws, and that way it will be critically sharper, tighter and will have more credit, when you actually find a movie a 4 our of 4 quality.
To me this movie is allways running here and there between fantastic and terrible. And in every 10 minutes of it. I have high hope for Snyders and Nolans work.
"Super Man" means: "Over Human", the possible future of Homo Sapiens, Homo Superiour. That makes his figure interesting. He's not indistruckable, and not just because of the green cryptonite. He's abbilities are given by the planets nature. That's why he's not a god.
I personally never like these films they got increasingly worse and more tack and tongue and cheek. The fact that Man of steel is more of an action film may alienate folks but im sorry there is more wrong with these films than with MOS. Marlon Brando's phoned in performance, Marrgot Kidder is a unappealing and superficial women and also unsympathetic to me she loves Supes because he has powers, that's it. Lex Luthors plans for real estate like really who does that.
This movie isn't good... lol it's a good try but it's not good sorry