Superman (1978) is a Great Movie (But It Isn't Perfect)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- I love this movie quite a bit, and I consider it a gold standard in the tone of a superhero movie. But that doesn't mean it always makes perfect sense.
Social Media:
Patreon: / lofimediareviews
Twitter: / mfreckelton99
Instagram: / michael_fre. .
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/mfreckelton99/
Chapters:
Introduction 0:00
Which Cut? 1:48
The Production 3:32
The Score 5:56
Superman and Clark Kent 7:04
The Jor-El Problem 9:25
Lois Lane 10:55
Lex Luthor 12:44
The Film 14:37
The Dialogue 34:30
Other Details 37:12
Conclusion 38:09
Footage used from:
Superman (1978)
Hot Fuzz
Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends
Superman II
Music:
"Before the Night", "Resonance". "Oort Cloud" and "Tides" by HOME
"So Damn Beautiful" and "Popular Music" by FrankJavCee
"Oxygene 2" by Jean-Michel Jarre
Theme Song:
"11:40 PM (Cyberpunk Remix)" by In Virtual Skies.
End Theme:
"11:40 PM" by In Virtual Skies.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#Superman1978 #Superman 
Развлечения
Jor-el doesn't say he and his family are leaving krypton, he says "I will remain silent. neither i, or my wife will leave krypton"
Well fuck me, you're right. I somehow heard "while I and my wife leave". Pinning this so everyone can see my mistake.
So either I get a 0 on comprehension for that bit and need subtitles or the sound on the video file I was watching it from was dog shit. Not sure which is more likely tbh
@Latest Obsession oh the location of where Lex learned about Krypton itself was never a problem of mine (if my wording suggested so, that's bad phrasing on my part lmao, I was still learning how to express myself in this video). The only main confusion I have is on the timeline of when Krypton was destroyed. Time dilation might be a factor, but even that's dodgy given what the movie presents us with.
I have not heard that rumour. And I kind of hope it's not true bc that would be bloody disrespectful
@@spiderguy2nd23 His cameo is great.
Honestly, I think Superman is a top 20 movie of all time, just because of its influence
Me too.
Can’t argue.
Are you kidding? Of course, right up there with Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters, The Exorcist and Poltergeist.
@@edgardoMurnia have you seen it?
The 3 hour 8 minute version of the movie is so large in my mind.
Every time I would see the theatrical version for decades afterward, I would subconsciously be aware that critical pieces of the movie (in my mind) were missing. When I rediscovered the 3 hour 8 minute movie decades later, I was somewhat joyful that it was all there, again.
Same
I would too vaguely remember Superman being frozen and being shoot at by machine guns and I could never seem to see it happen in the VHS and later versions
Superman going through Luthor’s traps before coming strongly into his hideout is also a nice showcase for the quality of the special effects work in 1978. I agree. It never should have been cut.
I think it was the Salkinds that made that decision. They wanted the film to be family friendly. So they probably thought the scene was to violent. Also they were mad at Dick for cost overruns. Funny how they didn't have enough confidence in their movie. They wounded up making a lot more then they spent. I think to not look stupid. Even though the movie was a successful. They went ahead and fired Dick Donner anyway, and brought in Lester to finish part two. Just goes to show the stupidity of people just so in their minds? They could save face. Of course Lester went on to direct part 3. Of course? Most of that film was a big joke. Not on the part of the actors. It was who ever wrote the script. Who were the schmucks. Sorry I ranted on too long.
@@paulrodriguez8852 it was the Salkinds who gave the green light to the three hour 8 minute movie being shown on ABC. It meant money for them, because of the number of commercials they could squeeze into such a lengthy version of the movie. Donner strongly disliked that version of the movie, , for some reason preferring a 2 hour and 31 minute release that is also available online.. Donner’s preference is actually my least favorite one. It’s a half measure for intense fans and not as smooth running as the theatrical version of Superman.
@@paulrodriguez8852 I think the writers on Superman III are David Newman, Leslie Newman, and Robert Benton. Mario Puzo did not return to write Superman III after the stress/anger surrounding the making of Superman II.
@@nickperkins8477 Okay? makes more sense why it was so bad? A lot of people have blamed Lester over the years? But he was just directing it? He didn't write the story. They went overboared on the humor.
@@paulrodriguez8852 I was just trying to answer your question about who wrote the movie, not necessarily defending if.
Superman is my all time favorite movie. I was 5 years old when it came out in theaters and I was blown away. I agree that it isn't perfect, but I still love it. Makes me feel like a kid again every time I watch it. Sometimes I put it on just to watch the opening credits and listen to the amazing music
I fully agree. Nothing will put a smile on my face like Superman's main theme
@@edgardoMurnia haha what does that mean?
I agree with the entire analysis of the movie , except the 'it isn't perfect' part. For a forty year old movie to still have the professional criticism it has within the 21st century, that is perfection.
Honestly, the way I went about this was a belief that the fact that it isn't perfect isn't something to be held against it - for example, some of the more dated effects. I said a few times that the super speed stuff looks really silly. But all the same it brings a smile to my face. At the end of the day, I do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect movie - I wouldn't even say that of my favourite film of all time. But in the imperfections, we can find even more things to love about it.
I apologise if that didn't make sense, it's just my two cents on the matter
@@michaelinlofi I really understand and appreciate your clarity. Thanks.
@@michaelinlofi the effects were amazing for 1978. are you kidding me? this film even won awards for innovation in special effects. some of the scenes look better than the CGI crap we see today. it had a very organic feel to it
How they made Reeve look different as Clark Kent does not get enough credit
It was not only just the makeup, glasses and slicked-back hair that did the trick but Reeve's body-language he affected for the role of Clark: the slightly hunched-over pose, the slack wide-eyed facial expressions, the stammer in his voice. He really does become a very different person so that altogether the effect is complete. Sir Roger Moore himself observed this one day at the Pinewood Studios cafe during breaks in filming for both Superman and one of the 007 movies (Moonraker, I believe). When Reeve went through the cafe in his full Superman costume walking tall and proud, everybody in the room followed him with their eyes and women were flocking around him. But in another instance when he walked through in the Clark Kent guise and affecting the character's manner and body-language, nobody even noticed him.
OK, I feel like I’ve had to explain this for probably the past 40 years. Superman did not change the earth’s direction when he spun around the planet as fast as he did… He used the earth to slingshot himself to the point where he broke the space-time barrier… The earth spinning backward was just a representation of time going in reverse from superman‘s perspective. If it was a matter of him changing the planet’s rotation by way of gravitational force, the planet itself would’ve been utterly destroyed. Understandably, the film does not do a particularly good job of explaining this, which was probably due in large part to the technical limitations of the time.
I know this may sound crazy, but it makes it hell of a lot more sense than thinking time is reversed by simply spinning something in the opposite direction.
Oh no I always thought he was flying back in time and that it wasn't Earth going backwards. If that wasn't made clear that's on me for sure. It's not the mechanics of time travel I'm having a go at though. I just think it's a bit of a cop out in a movie I otherwise love
@@michaelinlofi I get it. I was 4 when this film released…absolutely my favorite film of all time. But as you mentioned, glad it didn’t happen after the second film…now that would have been a cop out! 😂
The extended television version of Superman II Is also tremendous. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to find in America anymore. RUclips has some clips that ran with the extended television version of Superman II, but I would love to see it completely restored in America, perhaps for HBO Max.
Should I ever finish the script for my Superman II video, I will be mentioning that cut too. It is interesting for sure
Absolutely!
Superman II is golden. The 3 hour 8 minute TV cut of Superman is long, but essential. I saw that version of the movie twice when I was very young (3 and 4 years old) and the theatrical version the rest of the time until very recently. The 3 hour 8 minute movie adds some necessary bizarre scary qualities to the destruction and explosion of Krypton.
The first half of this film is perfection! It gets a little dull when the missile stuff comes along, and the VFX take a dip in quality too. The sequence in Lex Lair was phenomenal and should have been left in.
Another great quote:
“Miss Teschmacher, some people can read war and peace, and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Some people can read the ingredients on the back of a chewing gum wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe.” - Lex Luther
Happy 45th Birthday to the Film that made us believe a Man could Fly.
Can't tell you how magical this movie was for kids in 1978. We all wanted to be Superman after seeing this.
My mum's DVD of Superman II had much the same effect on me as a child
The child reading the comic book is Superman’s past, present, and likely future molding into a full color movie. Creatively at the time, ‘June 1938’ becomes December 1978.
If you watch MovieBob's 'Really That Good: 'Superman'[1978]', there's a part where he talks about the opening scene being designed to make older audience members of the time think of the live-action TV series 'Adventures of Superman', and the 2 live-action serials, with the black-&-white presentation and the usage of a fullscreen aspect ratio image within the widescreen frame being crucial to that. I don't know if that was the intention, but if it was, that's quite interesting.
The way someone put it to me and I only understood it when I read the 75th celebration collection of Superman is that it’s not depicting Superman as we know him today-though obviously there are a lot of things he did that he still does today- but it’s more of a golden age/early silver age Superman and I can totally see it. Still need to see the second one I’ve heard it’s so much better than the first!
Not a word about the comic book opening? Still baffles me to this day.
I seem to remember writing a comment on that, but it never made it to the video for reasons now unknown to me.
But yeah, it's weird and strikes me as highly unnecessary
I love Richard Donner as a filmmaker, overall. He is great and his theatrical version of Superman is one of my personal favorite movies of all time. But, the extended television version is better. The qualifier is that it is very helpful to be an extremely big fan of Donner’s movie to fully appreciate the extended movie.
The 3 hour 8 minute movie matches the tone of any version of Superman II better than the theatrical version of the first movie does .
I recently drunk purchased this on a Saturday. Wound up watching it start to finish. No regrets. It still holds up great and I was surprised how well it is paced. The shot of him lifting the earth under the quake in California was spot on.
The fact that it remains exciting nearly 50 years on is a testament to the talent both in front of and behind the camera for sure. Outstanding work
When I was younger I thought Zod told Jor-El that one day he would bow down before him: “you and your ass.”
Thanks for this - it's a cool review. But a few things - Marlon Brando may not have approached this movie like The Godfather and perhaps he didn't go full 'method' on this but his performance is still the most commanding Jor El we have seen, and is set up almost as if we're watching Shakespeare or Greek Tragedy (hence the casting of British royalty of stage and UK war films)
You're reviewing a film made in 1978 looking at it from todays perspective. Jor El is set up dramatically to see through what he wants his son to be for earth and represent in terms of Krypton (he informs superman on his past and who he is) he even says "you may live amongst the humans ...but you are not one of them" - in the end Superman defies him (by spinning the world back) and defies him again in Superman 2 (by losing his powers) by showing very human qualities that he has learned from his earth parents and work family. Superman is about Kal El wanting to be accepted by humans. This is touched upon in highly subtle ways. He loses his birth family. Loses his earth dad. And gains a work family where he falls in love with a 'friend' lois. Man Of Steel deals with this quite well but its not as subtle and not as character driven - but more events driven. Marlon Brando works in this and is critical in him being Superman (it wouldn't work if it was martha, she doesn't understand they're human - they love him as their own but they don't know where he's come from) - Clark is his mask but its also who he has been raised to be by his earth parents. This works very well in Superman 3 with lana lang - you see the small town aspect in Clark and parts of this in Superman also.
The reason the film opens with a child reading a comic book - its because in 1978 no one had produced a live action Superman - ever. It truly was a big deal. Their early promos said 'You will believe a man can fly' that's how eagerly anticipated this movie was and it was shot back to back with Superman 2 (this is why lois looks like she did in superman - slightly fuller face. Than some of other scenes where her face is gaunt - its because Richard Lester had to reshoot some of the movie to get a credit even though much of it was in the can)
The comics is tour de face anticipation so that our imaginations as a child can see see what the motion picture will deliver. It's an epic adaptation and closely linked to the source material.
And Lex Luthor using 2 numbskulls shows just how greedy a bully he is. Anyone intelligent and with self confidence would never follow him, so he uses and abuses these 2 because they need him and acceptance. This actually shows you how cruel he is. But Miss Tessmarker shows her human side by saving superman.
I agree about real estate - but this is very much a new york developed movie and in the late 70's new york was not the new york of today and was very poor and run down in parts - so Lex - very new york - wants real estate (but agree a bit odd)
I remember that I went to the cinema 7 times so fascinated I was by this film which for me was the biggest movie in my youth and have never forgotten, thanks to Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder and a very special thanks to Richard Donner, you were the best
Yeah! I saw it in the theater when it came out. I was about 17 at the time. Just to clarify something. I think the Salkinds had the right to say hey we think your going way over budget to Richard Donner. The problem was Donner was already a pro and, new what he was doing. They should bbn have waited until he had completed part 2 before deciding to fire him. First of all when Superman was released. They made back triple their money then what had been spent. They just had no confidence in their film. Sad.😐
Don’t forget Gene Hackman, the greatest Lex Luther of all time
@@kingrama2727 sorry sir, of course thanks to Gene Hackman and not to forget Ned Beaty and finally Valerie Perrine for her outstanding performance in this wonderful movie 🙏👍😁👌bye
@@paulrodriguez8852 yes, your had absolutely right for this great commentary 🙏👌bye
I think Clark does have motives to become Superman... it's just not that obvioys, rendered in subtext. During the Smallville section, we see his isolation and frustration due to keeping his powers a secret, as well as his regret over not being able to save Jonathan. Superman, in this movie anyway, seems to go along with Jor-El's wishes as a way to get the companionship/acceptance he didn't get before.
I feel this is supported a bit in the deleted scene you mentioned where Jor-El warned Clark about the potential secret identity problems; at the end, Clark reaches out to Jor-El and looks disappointed when the floating head vanishes instead. Maybe that also explains him accepting Lois off the bat and why he was so willing to give up his powers for her in the sequel too.
Could do, and you could be right. But given that this is an origin story film, which should by nature really dig deep into Superman's motivations, relegating said motivations to subtext is still a bit of an odd choice. I would have liked to see more of a path to becoming Superman is all.
But as I said, this by no means makes this any less of a good movie. It's just a note I have for a movie I otherwise adore
@@michaelinlofi Oh absolutely, I do agree that they could have delved more into Superman's thought process throughout these movies. If nothing else, I like that Lester's take on Superman allowed him to show more of a vulnerable side than what Donner would have allowed.
@@michaelinlofi I think that it's pretty clear that, as is traditional with the character, Clark ultimately becomes Superman because he feels that he has a moral obligation to use his gifts to help those in need, and to try to make the world as much of a better place as he can. And, him using his superpowers to help others and improve the world as much as he can is what both Jor-El and Johnathan Kent hoped he would do.
Been binging on your superman vids. You deserve more subs than what you have 👍
Thanks for saying so! I'll be honest 550 is still a hell of a lot for me though 😅
I don't think Richard Donner was trying to make a perfect movie. He was trying to make a film that was entertaining, and enjoyable. Remember they filmed it in 1977. They released it in December 1978. I know because I saw it in the theater that year. So given the year it was filmed in and, that a lot of the special effects they were using were innovative for that time. I personally? Think it's a great film. I still enjoy it today. Funny what you can accomplish with no CGI, internet, or cellphones.
Oh none of this is to devalue the movie at all, I love it too, but all the same I felt it would be interesting to take something I love and look at it critically
He was trying to make adults believe a man could fly around in a red cape and blue tights and rescue people.
The 3 hour 8 minute movie also adds some crucial menace to Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor.
I just watched this movie (theatrical cut) again tonight. I remember it being PERFECT as a kid, but now as time has gone by, there are some dated effects (THANKS for mentioning the goofy train scene), the scenes I saw from the tv/director’s cut on YT that I liked were missing (from the extra Marlon Brando footage to the line from Lois about her and Superman’s work coming first), the writing is a little hasty, and the Smallville section is hastily handled and paced. But overall, it’s still golden for pretty much everything else, from the romance I still do like to the timeless score/effects, Chris Reeve’s PERFECT performance, the great acting and directing, and the execution still holds up to this day. I’ll be seeing Superman II (the real theatrical cut) again tomorrow!
@@edgardoMurnia That’s not what I said. The line went, “We’re sort of alike, aren’t we? I mean, our work always comes first,”, meaning that they had to put their romance aside in favor of their work, foreshadowing what happens when they don’t (or at least Clark doesn’t) in Superman II.
Nice straw man question though. LOL
@@edgardoMurnia Then why are you here asking this question if it doesn’t relate to that?
Because if you’re just her with the purpose of spamming these comments and trying to get a reaction out of me…
LOL NICE TRY. I’m done here.
The reason the model work during the dam sequence is a bit dodgy is because Derek Meddings, who did most of the model work for the film, left to work on "The Spy who Loved Me" And so they were handled by a different team, which is why it looks more like an episode of thunderbirds.
Huh, interesting. Thanks for that info!
Came here because of doctor who shitposts, stayed because it’s legit a great video
Why, thank you!
Okay, so the Flash can travel back in time due to his superspeed, sometimes it's a product of the speed force. So, actually, I rationalize the time travel bit as a visual representation of Superman going so damn fast, approaching the speed of light, that he travels back in time. Because, yeah, if he turns back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth, that'd be incredibly stupid. To explain why he flies the other direction, we'll just say he went too far back in time, and he didn't want to sit around waiting for his moment to step in and save Lois before creating a goddamn paradox. This means that at one point there are two Supermen/Supermans? at some point, allowing him to be in two places at once. Otherwise, if this weren't the case, he would have to stop the second missile after going back in time. But, he doesn't, he goes straight to Lois. This only makes sense if he only changes this one thing in the timeline.
See, that was my rationalisation too. I realise my wording on that wasn't very clear, for which I do apologise. My beef with the scene is entirely a narrative thing - killing someone and then going "but then it didn't happen" after a minute long mourning scene is a little cheap no matter how you slice it. And I will stress, as a Superman enjoyer I'm more than happy to go with it. But when looking at it objectively, which was the intention of the video, I have to point it out
@@michaelinlofi Oh, no, from a suspension of disbelief POV, I get that.
I'm so glad SOMEONE has finally mentioned "The Jor=El" problem. The whole point of Superman is that he's a good person because of his upbringing. Giving him a 'destiny' bestowed by Jor-El makes him less interesting. This story beat felt wrong when I first saw this movie when I was six years old and feels even worse now.
For real. The damage that plot line has done to the public perception of Superman is undeniable and is definitely partially responsible for Man of Steel blowing ass too
@@michaelinlofi Yep, that movie amped that particular angle up to 11
IK I already commented on this but…
I just finished watching the 151 minute Director’s cut of Superman last night. While it did include scenes that had no business being in the film (Lois on the train, despite Kirk Alyn’s cameo, and the extra bit in the Kent house before Martha sees Clark out in the field), and did cut some stuff from the TV version I liked (from the extended gas station explosion or Lois’s line to Superman about their work coming first or the “Next Year, Superman II”) I still really enjoyed the rest of the alternate scenes used in the film, especially the extra Marlon Brando bit which in a way with him warning Clark not to let his ego take control foreshadows his stepping into the chamber in Superman II, and the Lex Luthor trap scene. Although a superior edit of the director’s/tv cut (with some minor VFX work) would make the film perfect in my eyes.
This movie, along with its sequel, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy are my all time favorite comic book movies ever made! The reason why is the knew how to make these larger than life stories work as contemporary movies that could be enjoyed without the love for the big effects and action scenes. Sure they aren’t perfect and may have made a few changes I wasn’t exactly keen on (Lex is great but making him essentially a James Bond villain was weird, Peter should be smart enough to make his own web shooters and have more confidence after getting his powers, and Robin was such a shoehorned character). However, that doesn’t deter from everything these films got right, and in particular Superman got right. It paved the way for superhero movies to come, and it did a damn good job.
spoiler warning the fuckin film was out in 78 course it isnt perfect.but hey its the grand dad of all the superhero movies so
That's precisely how I feel. Make no mistake when I say it's not perfect it's not to dunk on the movie. I love it too
Interesting that you say that the Salkinds wanted Lois’ Can You Read My Mind monologue cut, and wanted the time travel moved to the end of the first movie. To hear Donner tell the story, he’s the creative genius thwarted at every turn by the greedy Salkinds.
I agree with you on the time travel ending not belonging at the end of Superman II. It completely wrecks the entire film. Why Donner thought it was a great idea is beyond me.
Much as I have a huge amount of respect for Donner and his vision, it's always seemed to me that he had a pretty inflated opinion of himself. Ultimately I don't think there were any heroes in this battle - the Salkinds were arseholes, but Donner's inability to compromise even in the face of mitigating circumstances didn't help him any either.
I'm surprised you didn't put "How big are you--how _tall_ are you?" in the dialogue montage.
There were a lot of lines I had in an initial cut of that montage I ended up ditching for time. That line may have been one
Thanks for the great videos. Just stumbled on them, but I've been watching these movies a lot lately so I was happy to hear your commentary.
*correction: the lead instrument in Otis's Theme is a tuba. #bandnerdstuff
Thanks for the feedback, and the correction on the soundtrack thing. I suspected I had confused the instruments there, but I couldn't be for certain
@@michaelinlofi lol! Please don't mention it. I feel self-conscious enough being an old band nerd. Either way, you have a new subscriber (who is off to watch Superman 2 in your honor). Cheers and Happy New Year!
@@michaelinlofi update:.I'll be damned. We're both right! When that theme is first heard, the melody is played by trombones. 2nd time, woodwinds. 3rd time, tuba. John Williams is tough to pin down! Lol...
Huh, how about that. Cool to know!
rewatching this film when I got older I noticed Lois was hanging from the helicopter right in front of a window. I suppose someone inside could have just pulled her in
I suppose that's true, but also imagine being the poor bastard pulling her in if your grip slips
@@michaelinlofi And, if you end up falling to your death yourself!
Turning back time does not change events, the missiles are still launched, the earthquake still happens, but Superman just stands there next to the car of Lois instead of going to control the damage of the missile... that I always found very stupid and made turning back time even more weird. It is a pity to see that no one is able to make a good Superman-movie these days, there are a few good movies and good TV-shows that should inspire a great movie. I would not mind a complete reboot with an origin story based on the best parts of Smallville and Reeve's first Superman, and a few movies showing Kal El evolving into Clark/Superman based on Superman/ Superman 2/ Smallville and even Lois and Clark. Man of Steel was such a letdown, too much time was spent on Krypton, too much active Jor El, a horrible Lois and a Superman with so little respect for life. Cavil was not a bad choice but where Routh had maybe done too much Reeve Cavil had done way too little and Reeve should always be an inspiration for any actor taking on the role because he was the best.
I’m not sure whether this is head cannon or not, but I’ve always attributed Jor-Eli’s line about Krypton being gone for thousands of years has something to do with relativity and space travel. So by Superman’s perception he’d been traveling for a couple of years the time was actually for thousands of years. Admittedly I don’t think this was intentional and I don’t really understand the theory, I’m just looking at the movie Interstellar and trying to apply that logic to make the line make some kind of sense.
That does track for relativity as I understand it. If you're going fast enough time will dilate around you. But I also don't think Donner was actively thinking about relativity in this movie so while the shoe fits I doubt it's intentional.
Also as a general note Interstellar is my favourite film of all time
@@michaelinlofi yes, like I said, I don’t think it was something he was thinking about either, but it makes enough sense for me that it’s what I choose to believe haha. While this movie does have its flaws, I do love it, it’s such a solid and well executed film, and has such a character that makes it quite possibly my favourite super hero movie. I was never really into Interstellar, I enjoyed the premise but my wife and I watched it recently and while we didn’t hate it we didn’t love it either.
That's fair. Interstellar for me happens to sit at a perfect crossover of interests: sci fi, physics, massive scope storytelling, and an emotional heart to the story. I fully intend to do a video on it once I'm confident my words can do justice to what I think of it
Also worth mentioning is that while Krypton's explosion was noticed on Earth in the 1940s, it is delaying the actual moment of destruction according to the speed of light. However many light-years away Krypton is from Earth is how many years it took after the explosion for anyone on Earth to notice it.
Zod says, "Your HEIRS!!"
Yes!! They badly needed to make Lex dark. I loved the movie as a little kid, but I would have loved it even more longer-term if I had been scared of Lex when I was a young child.
Nah, they tried that with Superman Returns, the raw more gritty malicious version of Lex Luther, and it didn’t really work too well. Lex Luther is bombastic not a hoodlum…
@@jrag1000 not really. Kevin Spacey’s LL is a hybrid of Gene Hackman and something darker, but they never really committed. Michael Rosenbaum’s and Jesse Eisenberg’s are much darker than Spacey. They half-recycle Hackman’s real estate concern in Kevin Spacey. He had moments like “Now, fly!!” but they never commit the entire character to that.
I can remember buying advance tickets to watch this movie but the beginning disappointed me.
10:19 do you have a link to your man of steel video? I can’t find it on your channel.
Sure thing, here you go.
ruclips.net/video/Mb06yLN58kw/видео.html
It's currently unlisted, as while I stand by the opinions expressed in the video I don't think the presentation is necessarily my best work
@@michaelinlofi nice review, did you review Batman vs superman as well
I'll do you one better than that and link a playlist I have of the three videos I did on Snyder.
ruclips.net/p/PLXnM0JWtcWlL35Br0YZQDGVi-pBIovFcs
I want to know what happened with his mother on Earth for 12 years. How could Clark have explained to her where he had been all that time? He does state at the daily planet that he wants some of his paycheck sent to her so evidently she is still alive. This has always bothered me.
Yeah this is the last time we ever see her because in Superman III there's a throwaway line about how Martha is dead and last time Clark was in Smallville was for her funeral? The fact that the movies breeze over anything to do with the Kents like that is my major gripe with that series
@@michaelinlofi A major gripe that I have with the movie and a number of subsequent on-screen iterations of the 'Superman' property is having it so that Johnathan Kent dies when Clark is a teenager. I prefer it when he's still alive and Clark is able to talk to him & Martha about his double life problems. All of the interactions between Clark, Johnathan, & Martha, both of this nature specifically and in general, in the live-action TV series 'Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman'(which gave us the best versions of Johnathan Kent & Martha Kent and Perry White) are really good.
So, my thought on the flying around the Earth to go back in time (to at least make it more tolerable) is that we shouldn't think of what we are seeing as him making the Earth change direction as much as that we are just seeing a visual representation of moving backwards in time.
There is a pretty convincing theory that by orbiting a strong source of gravity such as a super massive black hole that you could actually arrive back at the start of your orbit before you left (Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked about it a few times). This is based on something which has already been proven, relativity, which is that time moves at a different rate in the presence of gravity (or I should say in the presence of stronger gravity) than in no gravity (which I should say a weaker source of gravity). This is actually used every day with things like our GPS satellites (an offset of about 38 microseconds per day).
While I doubt there is any way to go around the Earth fast enough to leverage relativity, at least there is that grain of truth to hold on to, which is better than most time travel movies.
See that's not even my problem with it. I have always seen it as him flying back in time rather than pushing it back in time (if my phrasing was wrong that's on me). I just think it's a cop-out of a writing technique
@@michaelinlofi Ah, and I don't think there is any getting around that since you are absolutely correct. At that point there are no stakes in any event like this if he is essentially unkillable and can go back in time anytime he wants to save anyone.
Somehow, even with that I always loved this movie. I watched the TV version probably way more times than I should have =P
Oh, I love it too. In some ways this video was an exercise for me in terms of "can I be objectively critical about a movie I love"
Any updates on the superman 2 review
Hi, thanks for asking! Sadly, I am still working on it. I'm sorry it's taking so long to write, I have the worst case of writers block right now, but believe me I am working to get it done!
I like Lois’s ‘Can You Read My Mind?’ monologue. It’s pretty cheesy and doesn’t age well. But, I first saw it at an age when I just went okay that’s it. I also appreciate hearing the lyrics to the movie’s instrumental love theme.
Yeah! I heard originally they wanted Margot Kidder ( who played Lois ) to sing a song during the flying sequence. But bbn they later changed their minds.
@@paulrodriguez8852 They wanted her to sing? Bloody good job they changed their minds on that then because that would have been very jarring
@@michaelinlofi I agree. It would have been like a disney musical.
They just wanted Margot to sing the lyrics that she speaks in voiceover in the movie, anyway. Margot could not sing.
@@paulrodriguez8852 oh god.
Superman saved Lois's life. That's why she fell in love with him
You're right but in terms of love interest character development in superhero stories that's the biggest cop out
@@michaelinlofi She was intrigued when he saved her life but then after he took her on the flight around Metropolis that’s when I say she fell in love with him
Eh maybe I'm still not overly fond of how it's written though. I feel like it could have been done much better is all (and again, I do love this movie so it's not like this plot thread ruins it for me)
The 3 hour version is the best. More character development and context given to the multitude of set pieces. Not to mention the 3 hour plus version elevates the film's overall presentation to the status of a 'classical epic' in the similar vain as old school epics like Gone With The Wind or Ben Hur and Ten Commandments.
I think the 3 hour version is my most viewed cut of the movie for sure
@@michaelinlofi Yeah, it helps to round out the world in which the film takes place. Filmmakers have to have more faith in their fans who appreciate these extended cuts like Peter Jackson's ext. LOTR trilogy.
Christopher Nolan is someone who could take note.
What did you think about them putting Christopher reeve in the flash?
I have not seen the film yet, but when I saw the clips I must say my reaction was one of horror. Using Reeve's face as a "hey I know this one!" cameo after the way he and the rest of the Superman team were jerked around by the Salkinds and Warner Bros. in general felt to me like a final insult to his legacy. I know people such as John Glover have come out in defence of it, but I just can't get behind it
@@michaelinlofiMe neither. WB does not deserve these properties nor these characters.
It was perfect to me.
What's makes Lex Luther draw the conclusion that kryptonite can harm Superman?
I've often wondered that myself
What do you think of Dean Cain superman?
Actually I don't think I've ever seen any of Lois and Clark. May have to remedy that one day
I like the strange qualities in the 3 hour 8 minute movie. I love the slightly extended destruction and explosion of Krypton in that version of the movie. I like the slightly darker version of Lex Luthor in that version of the movie.
I agree with you. Gene Hackmans Lex Luther is comical. Even though he's evil? He has some of the funniest lines. I wish they would have shown who his pet babies were. If they were lions, tigers. Lol
@@paulrodriguez8852 maybe they were insecure, because the style of the movie was so new at the time. Maybe they wanted Safe Lex, but it was a missed opportunity. Gene Hackman could have acted anything on the page. I love the destruction and explosion of Krypton in the longest movie because I think the destruction of a world would be scary and bizarre. The theatrical version is action-oriented in that sequence, but not scary or bizarre.
And, even though Superman II is stranger than the 3 hour 8 minute movie of Superman, the tone of the 3 hour 8 minute movie matches Superman II in tone better.
@@nickperkins8477 it's not that Superman 2 was strange? It's that the Salkinds fired Donner from finishing the movie just to put it mildly? To save face. Because they were angry that Donner was going way over budget. So to show they were right? ( which was laughable ). They hired Lester to finish the film. Childish? In my point of view.
@@paulrodriguez8852 I believe the Salkinds were proud of being creative drivers behind Superman and then might have been envious of Richard Donner’s special genius for the character of Superman.
The Jor-El problem is something that Superman and Lois fixed and IMO, Angus Macfadyen played the best Jor-El. Also, please review superman and Lois."
I'll have to finish it first, but I did catch the first few episodes and definitely liked what I saw
@@michaelinlofi oh so you've heard his line after the kid said cool costume
Yes. It was the dorkiest thing ever, and it was also the most Superman thing any version of the character had said in over 20 years so it made me extremely happy
@@michaelinlofi well he is a dork because he is clark kent who just happens to be superman and kal el.
@@michaelinlofi so, how is it?
The only thing that didn't work for me was the cold environment, they had no powers on krypton. So they couldn't live like Superman was able to on Earth in his fortress of solitude without the cold harming him.
Let's be honest, the rule of cool is at play here more than anything else. And I don't mind it bc those sweeping shots of the crystalline cities of Krypton are worth it
@@michaelinlofi yeah, I ate it up anyhow. 😆
At the end of Superman II, he used heat to destroy his replica of his home Krypton again.
I don’t see the issue with the love story: Superman is a rock star so it’s stretch of the imagination that Lois would want a piece of that and Superman/Clark deeply deeply cares for Lois - a woman who was given the task of taking him under her wing almost in a motherly fashion. There’s a lot going on there.
I suppose so. It's mostly the speed at which they fall head over heels for each other that I sort of tilt my head sideways at. Personally I would have written it to develop across the whole back hour as opposed to mostly in the five minute interview scene, but I'm also not Mario Puzo or Tom Manciewicz so
@@michaelinlofi ok. Maybe I’ve only seen the edited version of that scene. There’s so many versions I can’t keep track.
Tbh I think we're watching exactly the same thing and just having very different experiences with it. My mind tends to be a bit too literal so it's very possible I missed something 😅
The Flash film is great. If Superman The Movie were released today it would bomb and critics would hate it. It made the best of DC being so pathetic and made something as good as Marvel, maybe better than Marvel. What a real multiverse would look like in the collective conscious is hard to criticize as being bad CGI. I have no idea what that would look like. It covered a territory beyond ordinary rules of reality yet was pure Gardner Fox science fiction. In this way it reminded me of Superman The Movie.
Shit dude, you deserve more subs, great content
Thank you for saying so! Means a lot
Did the cop bump Superman's arm? 8:37
I think he did
@@michaelinlofi yeah, that breaks the immersion there… one scene a thug hits him over the back of the head with a crowbar and the thug is shaking from the rebound and next a cop bumps and moves his arm… guess he wasn’t ready. lol
go watch superman 2 the donner cut. It happened
Proud to save I have a copy of Action #500
Awesome! I might have had one once too, in a crate of comics my dad had when I was young, but they were all in sorry shape by the time I was ten so my dad had to throw them away
Why does anything have to be perfect? And who is the authority on such matters?
Nothing has to be perfect, it was more just an observation. Warts and all i love this movie regardless (hence my thumbnail calling it a golden superhero film).
Also lets be honest. Nobody clicks on a video called "Superman (1978) Is Great" bc we all know that. But if I point out a couple flaws, and say up front it isn't perfect, then people click. I'm not saying this was intentional clickbait bc that didn't even occur to me when I titled the video, but given it's my most viewed video by far it's clearly worked
Major plot hole that Superman couldn't catch both missles but could fly fast enough to time warp. That's not good writing
To be fair Supermans abilities have always been on an "as the writers need" basis in the comics too. Power scaling him is pointless imo
It's still the greatest Superhero movie ever
Cannot argue that. Given what it began, it cannot be replaced
Superman is going back in time he's the observer relevant to his point in time not Earth.
Lemme break it down a bit more. Superman is the only being capable of faster than light travel, hence he is his own Time Machine. He couldn’t push the earth toward light speed not that it would cause the desired effect. He’s basically so “Super” that he himself can travel backward and forward through time.
Oh I know he's time travelling not pushing the Earth backwards. As I've said before around here, my phrasing on that point was kinda dogshit. But ultimately that's not the problem i have with the scene, I just reckon it's copping out a bit. It's not something that ruins the movie for me though, I like cheesy Superman shit
@@michaelinlofi yeah, actually when I was younger I actually thought the same thing, that he was spinning the earth so fast it was going backward in time 🤣.
Then learned Einstein’s theory of relativity and figured it out. Of course theoretically he shouldn’t but he breaks all the laws of physics…
He’s not everyone’s favorite Superman
He is unless your blind
@@robatkinson2125 not even close, also it’s you’re not your
I'm aware. It was just a bit of hyperbole
I've never been a Gene Hackman way before he played in Superman! He doesn't turn my top!
Your entitled to your opinion. I respect that. He's really funny as Lex in Superman 4. His creation? More comical than looking at him as a threat as t
I feel myself getting defensive when hearing any criticism of this movie. I think it is simply wonderful, and unfortunately spoiled by a number of rather lousy sequels. Richard Donner had the best balance of sincerity and idealism, countered to dry wit and humor. As you point out this movie was made almost 50 years ago, decades before the me-too movement took hold in Hollywood. Not sure it’s fair to judge it based on today’s sensibilities.
The actors and their characters are charming, as well as the whole movie itself. This was the ultimate form of escapism, something comic books used to offer. The DC universe, especially the current Batman movies, seem driven towards dread and nihilism.
This movie is the cure for such bleak preoccupations.
I don't disagree that this movie is a much needed tonic for the more cynical film landscape of today - I too miss optimism and joy in movies. And for what it's worth, as I said in this video, when I'm actually engaging with the movie 90% of the flaws in the movie don't really concern me. I'm along for the ride like everyone else. It's a point I wish I'd emphasized a bit more actually, as it appears it got lost somewhere in translation.
However I also think it's important to look at how today's audiences are gonna engage with this movie.I first saw this movie as an adult who grew up with what movies are today. Even with that context this movie is a solid 9/10, and I think that a film from 1978 can be as exciting to me (more even) as something released today is nothing to be sneezed at. But all the same, it's interesting to see what's changed in how stories are told in film, and where the disconnect _might_ be for some audiences. Was this the intention of this video? Not even remotely. I was just speaking into the void and not expecting nearly this many people to hear it. But if this video achieves that perspective, than I'll be OK with it.
Interesting that you specifically highlight the MeToo movement, as I assume you're speaking in terms of that one joke involving Ms. Tessmacher and the soldiers. That is the one joke in the movie I'm always gonna have a hard time looking past, as it strikes me as not only a bit icky but also not all that necessary and even a little out of place in a movie like this. It really sticks out like a sore thumb and it's something I always knew I'd bring up in this video
@@michaelinlofi obviously you make several good points. Reviewing and analyzing this film for today’s audiences certainly poses some dilemmas. From that point of view, you are correct, younger audiences will certainly view this film through a different lens than those in 1978.
Even on the subject of visual effects. The filmmakers at the time simply did the best with what they could using practical effects, miniatures, models, etc. By today’s digital technology, it is quite inadequate in retrospect. However, at the time it was given high praise for its realism.
In terms of today’s morals and values, I wonder if you have ever reviewed Animal House, another movie from that time. I watched it last year with my sons, one of whom was leaving for college, thinking they would find it funny. I was embarrassed by how inappropriate and deviant the film is from our perspective today. There are several scenes involving voyeurism, underage, girls, and what would be date rape had the character elected that path. It is honestly hard to remember how that was once considered amusing.
Actually the visual effects, outside of me being cheeky about Clark's super speed, have never been a concern of mine. My parents raised me on a healthy diet of 60s Star Trek and Classic Doctor Who (and Superman II), so visual effects of yore not only don't faze me but also sometimes add something to the charm. This movie wouldn't have nearly the same personality without the front projected flight sequences or heat vision being drawn onto the film
I think Henry cavil could be as good a Christopher reeve if he was given a better script.
Don't necessarily disagree with you. I think a better script and much better direction would have helped. But I don't know if I would have ever bought him as dorky Clark Kent. I guess we'll never know
Why does it have to be perfect? It's great. Leave it alone, for God's sake. It's a beloved classic, and watching it picked to pieces like this is painful.
I was barely mean to it? Most of my negative comments were storytelling beats I wish had been done better, and any time I was nitpicking I pretty much instantly went "doesn't really matter though because the movie still works" or something. I'll admit though if I were to do this video today, I would write it very differently. Some of my points are just me being cheeky for the sake of it, and that's not good movie criticism
33:31 oh absolutely because he couldn’t accept failure which proves he’s not a character but concept, this reminds me of the Hobbit trilogy where you have one of the dwarves and a elf girl in a romance which both are so unrealistic and dumb, also I wonder if this influence the Injustice where Superman goes insane all because Lois is Absent in his life which it’s like if Superman was giant baby who has lost his teddy bear and Lois is the teddy bear.
A disagreement here, but a small one. I don't intend to say you're wrong, and I don't advocate the refusal to accept failure. But, success sells more than failure does. For example, Action Comics Issue 1, the first appearance of Superman. For another example, this movie, Superman 1978. It got made. Moviegoers flocked to it like it was the next Star Wars.
This Superman is more than a concept. He is a fully fleshed character, almost as much as the real-life people who made the movie. (Although, is any fictional character ever really fleshed out to the fullest?) He is as realistic as can be, at least in a movie of this kind (maybe the first movie of its kind). He rode the plot and faced every element at a high level all the way, except for that one minute. Superbaby without his Superbinky? I don't think so. It might look like it, but just for a minute. A crucial point where he could let down the paying audience, or please the crowd but undo his story and his own character. To be or not to be realistic? Win your audience, lose your critics. You can't always be perfect.
And, even though the world was saved from destruction, some damage and loss (offscreen, anyone's guess) was still left. Smaller failures that someone has to accept.
@@rickriffel6246 and this is why the Closer Look makes a good point
Problem with Superman today is simple - * they're ashamed of his bright cheerful costume with red shorts outside * they're ashamed to say "Truth, Justice and the American way" * they're ashamed of his superpowers being god like and have mortals like Batman actually outsmart him (hint: only one shit that begins with Kryp...) * they want women to be as strong as him despite the movie being about him
Eh... not really.
You're right that the insistence on toning down his costume to be less Technicolor is a bad idea. It's part of why I very much dislike the Zack Snyder take on the character for example. Superman is an inherently bright and cheerful character and messing with that is going to ruin things. However, I disagree with pretty much everything else.
While I'm of the opinion that Batman is well overhyped in some DC circles, having him outsmart Clark does make sense - Bruce Wayne is an extremely intelligent man.
The fact that the immortal line is now "Truth, Justice and A Better World" actually makes me a lot happier - I was a young Australian Superman fan when I first became obsessed with the character and it always struck me as odd that Superman was treated as an American symbol rather than a global symbol of peace. I feel the new line better reflects what he truly is, the shitshow that is American politics notwithstanding.
And I'm not sure where women came into it at all? And even on that note I always love it when Lois or Kara are given something to do in these stories.
@@michaelinlofi and Australian politics - with people held against their will in COVID concentration camps in the NT being arrested for escaping, people being beaten in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne by the cops for not wearing masks, Dan Andrews being granted unlimited "emergency" powers by Parliament in Victoria like he's Darth Sidious or something, families living between state borders are walled off from each other like they're living next to the Berlin Wall, and postmenopausal germophobes like Palaczhook and Berjikian making average citizens literally prisoners in their own homes - is better? That's not a shitshow? Mate, I wouldn't be surprised at all if your country has a violent armed revolution within the next year.
I like your assessment of Superman 1978, but fuck "global symbols of peace" and "Truth, justice, and a better world." What are supposed to be "free countries" today like Australia, Germany, Austria, and Italy are no better than Communist China, Iran, or the Soviet Union.
@Eq 137 Oh boy.
"People being held against their will in concentration camps" looked into this one. Are you referring to the Howard Springs quarantine facility, where travellers are detained for fourteen days upon entering Australia? Because that is what it is, and for the record while things are far from five star there you can get Uber Eats there. To compare that level of living for just fourteen days to the mass genocide at the hands of Hitler is misinformed at best, deliberately ignorant at worst.
And yes, some cheeky buggers did get arrested for breaking out. That happens when you break the quarantine law.
That's not to say I'm too keen on how Australia has used their police force as of late, though I have not seen any evidence of people getting their shit kicked in for not wearing masks (can't say it would shock me - I am a firm proponent of quarantine laws until this thing is past us but beating people up is not fixing the problem. If anything it's making it worse.) But it is not unique to COVID. Fairly recently the former Deputy Premier of New South Wales used the Fixated Persons Unit (an anti-terrorism squad) to arrest the lawyer working for a comedian who made jokes about him that were admittedly pretty offensive. Australia definitely has a police problem and massive reform is violently needed. But this is not a result of COVID. It's been going on for years. None of us have been happy about it.
And my point about America stands. Just because Australia is fucked doesn't mean I think "the American way" is any better of an ideal. A better world for every human on Earth is a far more admirable thing for Superman to stand for than a patriotic ideal.
NO MOVIE IS PERFECT....NO MOVIE.. GET OVER IT! ITS BETTER THAN MOST SO JUST DEAL WITH IT
Dude no need to shout.
And as I made clear in my video, I love this movie. I just thought it would be interesting to look at it objectively. None of its flaws ruin it for me at all, it's just a critique
Too many gags and corny lines in the whole christopher reeve superman series.
I couldn't disagree more. Superman himself is pretty cheesy but he's always worked better as a cheeseball in any Superman adaptation I've liked
@@michaelinlofi I guess it's what you prefer. I liked the dark and destructive seriousness of Man of Steel best.