Christmas 2017: December 4

Mystery Science Theater 3000: Santa Claus

My love of “Mystery Science Theater 3000,” weirdly, has not come up too often on this blog. I guess I figure it goes without saying. I love old genre movies, low budget filmmaking, robots and puppets. “MST3k” is exactly in my wheelhouse and always has been. When it comes to MST3k holiday episodes, the go-to answer is usually “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians,” from season three. However, I reviewed that film in its raw, unriffed form back in December of 2015. Not wanting to repeat myself, I instead opted for the other Christmas-themed MST episodes. That would be “Santa Claus,” from season five, after Mike became the human host.

Unlike “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians,” which was home-brewed American weirdness, “Santa Claus” is imported holiday hokum. The film was originally made in Mexico, for Mexican audiences. So its take on the Santa mythos is culturally specific. This St. Nick lives on the moon, instead of the North Pole. His reindeer are robotic automatons. A wizard, named Merlin in the English dub, helps him build his toys, not elves. Reflecting Mexico's nature as a deeply Catholic country, the film's plot sees Santa Claus fighting a devil sent to Earth to corrupt innocent children. (This is in addition to several religious mentions sprinkled throughout the film.) The English dub, via the power of re-editing and overzealous narration, manages to make a weird Mexican kid's movie even weirder.

Taken on its own, “Santa Claus” is actually the perfect kind of film for “Mystery Science Theater.” It is, by no traditional metric, a good film. The special effects are cheesy, unconvincing, and frequently unnerving. The story is nonsensical. Many of the film's choices are bizarre and unintentionally hilarious. Such as an overly verbose narrator and an ineffective villain. There's lots of long dialogue-free segments, allowing plenty of room for riffing. And yet “Santa Claus” is a film I'd almost be willing to watch without Mike and the Bots. The film's sets and props are bizarre. The disembodied body parts and robotic reindeer are honestly creepy. This combines with the movie's sometimes harsh tone – a devil tempting kids to commit murder, a world where the poor considering theft to survive – to a create a likably weird kid's movie. It's also all on accident too, as nobody involved in “Santa Claus” knew they were making something weird or creepy. That homemade quality adds a lo-fi charm to a film with an excruciatingly slow pace and terrible acting.

As an episode of MST3k, “Santa Claus” is of high quality as well. The riffing is frequent and often hilarious. Notable jokes include Mike and the Bots interpreting Santa's odd looks as he plays music for a gang of singing children. The bots often improvise their own lyrics for the musical numbers too. The gang's reaction to the film's villains – who they characterize as flamboyant, put-upon by his own incompetence, or overly sadistic – are one of the episode's best gags. The way they draw attention to Lupita's often awful situation, contrasting with the film's cheery tone,  is one of the writers' more insightful jokes. One of the best running jokes in the film is how the hosts respond to the film's chatty narrator.

While rarely the high-light of any episode, the host segments for “Santa Claus” are pretty amusing too. Two of the segments feature music. The first involves Mike and the Bots forming a prog rock group named Santa Klaws, which perform a whisper-y, synth-filled Christmas ballad of their own. Later, the gang joins together to sing a non-denominational Christmas carol called “Merry Christmas... If That's Okay.” That jokes leans on good ol' fashion absurdity more than its War on Christmas premise suggests. There's some other good jokes here too, like the Bots attempting to contact Mike's family for the holidays but instead talking to some other Nelson family. (Who are unmoved by the sight of two robots on a space station talking to them.) The episode concludes with a funny gag of snow falling on the Satellite of Love.

This episode remains a fan favorite among MSTies. It has been highly rated among several polls, deciding the show's best episodes. The characters of Santa Claus and Pitch the Devil would appear in a few other host segments. RiffTrax, Michael J. Nelson's eventual successor to his version of “Mystery Science Theater 3000,” has also covered the film several times. It all combines to make an ideal bit of oddball holiday cheer. The film itself is entertainingly weird on its own. The MST3k gang, meanwhile, provide jokes and wisecracks of a highly amusing nature. I highly recommend it! [7/10]

Justice League: Comfort and Joy

Despite my general love for “Batman: The Animated Series,” I have very little exposure to “Justice League,” its eventual spin-off. I have heard that the show's sole Christmas episode, “Comfort and Joy,” is well regarded. It's also fairly isolated, being the sole stand-alone episode in a season composed of two-parters, so it sounded like I could drop right in on this one. The episode concerns the League going their separate ways for the holidays. Superman visits his parents in Kansas and brings along Martian Manhunter, who has no familiarity with Earthly holiday customs. The Flash performs his yearly tradition of grabbing the season's hottest toy for an orphanage in Central City. Along the way, he encounters erudite villain Ultra-Humanite. Lastly, Green Lantern and Hawk Woman vacation on a wintry planet and, at her suggestion, end up in a bar brawl somewhere else.

“Comfort and Joy” resonated with me because of how it shows the different ways people celebrate the holidays. Clark Kent returns home, spending the day with holidays. The Flash focuses on charity, giving to the needy. This spirit of giving ends up infecting the Ultra-Humanite. While destroying a modern art museum, which he sees as an affront to classical aesthetics, the Flash talks Humanite into helping him give a gift to the kids. (Though he reprograms the toy – a rapping, farting robot duck – to play the Nutcracker Suite instead.) This subplot comes full-circle at the end, when Flash presents the villain with an aluminum Christmas tree in his prison cell. This ends up reminding the bad guy of his own childhood.

Some people don't celebrate at all. Hawk Woman, another alien, commemorates Christmas by picking fights in alien bars. This, however, ends up bringing her and Green Lantern – apparently they have romantic feelings for each other – closer. And that's what it's really all about, isn't it? While bunking with the Kents, Martian Manhunter gets familiar with Christmas traditions. Like gift-giving, caroling, or leaving cookies out for Santa. In the end, the alien finds himself touched by giving kindness and receiving kindness in turn. (There's also plenty of cute gags here, like the Kents wrapping Superman's gifts in lead foil, so he can't peek with his x-ray vision.)

“Comfort and Joy” is pretty low on typical superheroic action. The episode begins with the League saving an alien world from colliding with another planet. There's a brief bit of Flash's superspeed, while trading blows with the Ultra-Humanite in the museum. Most of the action coems from Green Lantern and Hawk Woman's barroom brawl. Otherwise, this is an episode focused on characters. And that's why it works. It ends up being a surprisingly touching half-hour. [8/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Supergirl (1984)

Next summer, Wonder Woman is finally getting her own movie, something that’s long overdue. While it’s easily the most high-profile female-led superhero movie, it’s far from the first. “Elektra,” “Catwoman,” “Barb Wire,” “Tank Girl,” “Red Sonja” and “Sheena” all proceeded it. You’ll notice all those movies were box office bombs and most of them are varying degrees of terrible. Sadly, there was precedence for this too. The very first superhero movie of the modern age to star a woman was 1984’s “Supergirl.” Like the ones that came afterwards, “Supergirl” was a financial flop and a critical failure. Considering its dubious position in comic book movie history, why do I own it?

Following the destruction of Krypton, a remnant civilization of Kryptonians survive in a pocket dimension called Argo City, created by the artist Zaltar. Kara Zor-El, the cousin of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman, lives there with her family. After Zaltar steals the Omegahedron – Argo City’s power source – something goes screwy, the power source sucked into space. Kara follows the Omegahedron to Earth. There, the device falls into the hands of Selena, an amateur witch with dreams of ultimate power. Kara, meanwhile, becomes the hero Supergirl. While attempting to recover the power source, she also has to navigate high school, dating, and her own powers.

“Supergirl” is a deeply flawed film that does increasingly more things wrong as it progresses. However, the movie gets one important detail right. Helen Slatter plays Supergirl. Just as Christopher Reeves was perfectly cast as Superman, Slatter is pitch perfect as Supergirl. She’s beautiful, sincere, naïve, but curious, determined, empathetic, and willing to risk her own life to save others. Lacking the experience of her cousin, Supergirl makes more mistakes, doubts her own abilities more, which is totally in keeping with the character. While Slatter is great, the film could’ve handled the character better. When Superman first appeared in Richard Donner’s “Superman,” he’s helping people. When Supergirl first appears, she gets hit on by some truckers before beating them up.

The right actress was cast as the titular hero. That’s not what’s embarrassing about “Supergirl.” Instead, it’s the film’s villain that produces many eye rolls. Faye Dunaway plays Selena, the witch who accidentally receives the superpower granting MacGuffin. Selena is the most facile of female supervillain. She uses her newly gained ability to try and seduce hunky guys or throw awesome parties. It’s not until the half-way point where she starts to do truly evil things. Even then, her actions – enslaving the town, endangering Supergirl’s friend – come off as every superficial. Dunaway acts ridiculously, seeming less like a supervillain and more like a sitcom arch-enemy. Worst yet, Selena has two comic relief sidekicks. The incredible annoying Bianca, played by Brenda Vaccaro, makes constant quibs about the film’s events. Selena’s ex-boyfriend Nigel, played by Peter Cook, is a very broad, stuffy British stereotype. The character of Selena has no basis in the comic book either, making me wonder where the hell the screenwriter got these terrible ideas.

I think one of the reasons why so many female-led comic book movie fail is because directors, producers, and screenwriters feel the need to add condescending, stereotypical “girly” story developments. In other words, the creative crew do not take the characters seriously, solely because of their gender. This is very clear in “Supergirl.” A large portion of the film is focused on Kara’s adventures in high school. Some of this stuff is okay, like Kara befriending Lucy Lane, Lois’ little sister. Other parts are hopelessly dopey. Such as Supergirl’s abilities being used during a polo game or to prevent a locker room prank.

Worst yet is the bizarre romance forced into the movie. Selena attempts to cast a love spell on a hunky gardener. Through a convoluted series of events, he ends up falling in love with Supergirl. Enchantment is not a good basis for any honest relationship but “Supergirl” runs with this. The love interest, named Ethan and played by a flat Hart Bochner, essentially stalks the girl, appearing with candy and flowers. That Supergirl ends up reciprocating these feelings seems highly unlikely. Having said that, Slater’s incredibly sincere performance almost sells her feelings for this random guy.

The special effects in “Supergirl” range from okay to fairly bad. The flying shots are generally fine. However, the action scenes cooked up to challenge Supergirl are incredibly underwhelming. Selena’s plot causes a crane to go ballistic, threatening Kara’s friends and the Popeye’s Chicken they’re having lunch at. That it takes Supergirl more then a minute to diffuse this situation is disappointing. Later, Selena summons an invisible monster to fight Supergirl. How this one is defeated, which involves an electrified lamp post, seems especially random. Afterwards, the witch interrupts the heroine’s romantic date at a carnival. Causing bumper cars to go crazy is not a very threatening villainous action. The climax of the film has Supergirl fighting against a giant demon Selena summons, which is when the special effects are downgraded from “inconsistent” to “shitty.” It’s a fairly weak climax.

Why Do I Own This?: “Supergirl” has been in-and-out of print for years now. I own neither the original Anchor Bay release nor the Warner Bros’ DVD that came out in 2006. Instead, I grabbed a grey-market DVD at a convention a few years back. I was always curious about the film and, considering the dirt cheap asking price, decided to take a chance on it.

Why I continue to own it is out of a generalized desire that the movie was better. Whatever wishes I might have, “Supergirl” sadly isn’t very good. Helen Slater is great as the titular character but a ridiculous villain and mediocre script deeply hurts the film. It’s not even up to the quality of “Superman III,” though it’s slightly less embarrassing. I have no doubt that “Wonder Woman” and “Captain Marvel” will fare better and, hopefully, finally break the stigma surrounding female superhero movies. [5/10]

Recent Watches: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

The sordid history behind “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” is well known. After “Superman III’s” underwhelming reception, the franchise appeared to be more-or-less over. Hard up for money, the Salkinds sold the Superman film rights to the Cannon Group, those beloved and infamous purveyors of eighties cheese. In order to lure back Christopher Reeves, Golan and Globus promised him more control over the project. (They also promised to finance his pet project, “Street Smart.”) Reeves envisioned a crowd-pleasing blockbuster that would also spread a socially relevant message about nuclear weapons. Cannon, however, was used to doing stuff cheaply. Right before filming started, the budget was cut from 36 million to 17. The released film featured crappy special effects, a cheesy story, plot holes galore, and annoying new characters. Another Superman movie wouldn’t be released for nineteen years.

Superman isn’t having the best time. In Smallville, Clark Kent’s mother has died and land developers want to buy the family farm. In Metropolis, a sleazy tabloid publisher has bought the Daily Planet, degrading the quality of the paper. The president promises to increase the development of nuclear weapons. After receiving a stirring letter from a school boy, Superman decides to make nuclear disarmament his new goal. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor escapes from prison, with help from his nephew Lenny. Noticing his arch-enemy’s new passion, Luthor sets out to subvert it. Combining Superman’s DNA with nuclear power, he creates Nuclear Man, a dangerous new enemy that stands against everything Superman represents.

The previous “Superman” movies took place in a fantasy setting. Though the films made attempts to update the characters to then modern standards, the films were still set in a world that only partially resembled our own. Despite this, “The Quest for Peace” made the sudden decision to use Superman as a delivery system for social commentary. This shift is generally attributed to Christopher Reeves. A man who often used his celebrity status to draw attention to important causes, it seems likely that Reeves saw “Superman IV” as a chance to educate the world on nuclear disarmament. Yet the change in tone is still surprising. Superman marching into the U.N., demanding changes from world leaders, and making grand speeches is the kind of thing that never would’ve happened in the first three movies. Moreover, “The Quest for Peace’s” approach to nuclear disarmament is childish. Superman scoops all the world’s nukes into a giant net, which he then tosses into the sun, ignoring any number of social-economic issues wrapped up in the arms race.

If only a short-sighted, overly ambitious script was the only problem with “Superman IV.” The series making the jump from a big budget, mainstream studio to a low budget, B-movie production house is all too apparent. The special effects in “The Quest for Peace…” They’re shit. They’re just total shit. Superman’s ability to fly, his most iconic power, is so poorly executed. Each time Superman or his enemy flies, it looks like the actors are awkwardly posing in front of green screens, the effects blending in an ugly fashion. The miniature effects are uneven. The mountain tops or Statue of Liberty arms looks hopelessly fake. This isn’t even mentioning the lame shortcuts the money-strapped production took, such as Superman resembling the Great Wall of China with a look. If the special effects in the original “Superman” are mostly timeless, the effects in this sequel are hopelessly hokey.

The producers of “Superman IV” managed to get Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman back, mostly on account of them not being the much loathed Salkinds. The movie can’t even handled the already established romance between Superman and Lois Lane. There’s a horribly embarrassing scene where Clark reveals his secret identity to her and they go for a terribly executed flight around the world. Afterwards, he wipes her memory again. How often does Superman do that, anyway? The sequel also throws in an additional love interest, for some reason. Muriel Hemingway plays Lacy, the daughter of the Daily Planet’s new owner. The love triangle plays out in groan-worthy scenes of Lacy and Clark going to the gym. Or how about that awful scene of Superman and Clark going on a double date with Lois and Lacy, the kind of low comedy antics you’d expect to see on “Three’s Company?” Hemingway has okay chemistry with Reeves but she’s mostly an unnecessary addition to the story.

Speaking of unnecessary additions! Lex Luthor is back and Gene Hackman hams it up, being one of the film’s sole redeeming qualities. Yet Luthor is not alone. If you thought cousin Otis was bad, Jon Cryer as nephew Lenny makes him seem subtle and nuanced. Dressed as a bizarre new wave/rockabilly kid, Cryer shrieks and mugs painfully throughout his scenes. Yet even Lenny Luthor isn’t the worst new character. Nuclear Man is the solar powered, nuclear energy infused quasi-offspring of Superman. He speaks with Lex Luthor’s voice, saying few words. He attacks with electric press-on nails, cutting Superman’s flesh. He wears a goofy spandex costume and has a feathery eighties mullet. Despite his many abilities, Nuclear Man’s powers falter when he steps outside of sunlight. Aside from being portrayed inconsistently, this is a seriously lame weakness. Some guy named Mark Pillow, in his sole film credit, plays Nuclear Man by screaming blankly and stiffly moving his arms. In other words, Nuclear Man makes Gus Gorman look like a worthy member of Superman’s rogues gallery in comparison.

Cannon had loose plans for a “Superman V” but “Superman IV’s” disastrous critical and box office response put an end to that. Of course, you don’t need me to tell you that this movie is a complete fiasco. The film’s reputation more then proceeds it. The likes of “Batman & Robin,” “Catwoman,” “Elektra,” or Josh Trank’s “Fantastic 4” would later define the ill-conceived superhero flop. “The Quest for Peace” pioneered that particular, unfortunate cinematic fad. Cheap special effects, a sloppy screenplay and annoying new characters made sure this “Quest for Peace” would only succeed in killing the franchise. [4/10]

Recent Watches: Superman III (1983)

When the Salkinds chose not to invite Richard Donner back to finish “Superman II,” the future tone of the franchise from this point out had been determined. Camp and goofball comedy would reign. As promised in the end credits of part two, “Superman III” flew into theaters in 1983. Richard Lester would direct the entire production, insuring his goofball approach informed the entire movie. While early drafts had Superman fighting comic-based enemies like Mr. Mxyzptlk or Brainiac, the final film paired the Man of Steel up with a far more insidious threat: Richard Pryor.

The city of Metropolis remains under the protection of Superman, the world’s greatest hero. As mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent, Superman finds a new objective. He returns to his childhood home of Smallville for his high school reunion, reuniting with sweetheart Lana Lang. Meanwhile, unemployed slacker Gus Gorman discovers he has a knack for computer programming. This catches the attention of Ross Webster, a ruthless CEO looking to get into supervillany. Webster and Gorman’s plots, which involve weather manipulation and overpowered super computers, soon catches the attention of Superman. The villian’s plan to get rid of the hero has Superman struggling against his dark side.

“Superman III” essentially tosses together a bunch of ideas for a sequel in a rather unorganized fashion. These range from Superman going evil, to Superman fighting an evil version of himself, to the evils of computers. Of these random ideas, one works the best. Clark Kent returns to Smallville. Allowing Chris Reeves to spend most of the movie in the Kent persona lets the actor play up his everyman qualities and his comedic timing. Annete O’Toole plays Lana Lang, Superman’s traditional second option love interest. O’Toole’s wholesome small town girl (and single mom) contrasts nicely against professional lady Lois Lane. Reeves and O’Toole have great chemistry together. This keeps goofy scenes, like Clark helping Lana’s kid bowl or Superman having dinner at her house, from getting too ridiculous. The love story is the heart of an otherwise rutterless film.

Coincidentally, a year after Richard Pryor starred in original “Superman” director Richard Pryor’s “The Toy,” Pryor would appear in “Superman III.” I’m not sure why the Salkinds thought the profane stand-up antics of Richard Pryor were a good fit for the family-friendly Superman series. Gus Gorman, a shiftless slacker happy to play the system to make a buck, is very much a Pryor character. His sudden computer expertise comes out of nowhere, as the character apparently has a natural knack for programming. Once again, Pryor’s comedic style is a rough fit for a movie. In “Superman III,” Gus randomly performs a few big gags. Such as a cringe-worthy military themed speech in Smallville, skiing off a skyscraper, or getting a security guard blind drunk. None of it is that funny and Pryor seems deeply uninterested in the material.

The Silver Age Superman comics had a proud tradition of the hero acting like an asshole. “Superman III” gives us some Superdickery on-screen. Gorman infects Supes with some synthetic kryptonite he’s cooked up. Suddenly, he acts like a dick. He’s ignoring traffic accidents, straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa, puncturing a hole in an oil tanker, downing booze in a bar, and getting a booty call with the supervillain’s moll. This storyline climaxes when Superman flies into a junk yard. For some unexplained reason, he separates into an Evil Superman and a Good Clark Kent. Though we don’t know why this happens, the fight between the two Supermen is easily the highlight of the film. Superman drops Kent in a compactor, wacks him with a car fender, while they toss each other around. Aside from the action theatrics, this scene makes the point that both halves of Superman are necessary. Clark Kent’s humanity is what makes Superman a hero, not his massive abilities.

Despite forty years of comic books providing Superman with a proper rogues gallery, “Superman III” felt the need to invent a new villain. Robert Vaughn’s Ross Webster is an evil CEO, willing to break the law to dominate the coffee and oil industries. He has two female sidekicks. His sister, Vera, is overly strict. Pamela Stephenson’s Lorelei Ambrosia, meanwhile, shows off a lot of cleavage and acts like a femme fatale. Even though “Superman III” predates his transformation into an evil businessman, I suspect Webster’s role was filled by Lex Luthor in an earlier version of the script. After all, manipulating world supplies to make money is something Lex would do. He also already had a sexy female sidekick, in the form of Miss Treschmacher. Either way, Vaughn is an uninspired, uninteresting adversary.

Of course, Ross Webster and Richard Pryor aren’t even the real villains of “Superman III.” Instead, the real evil in the film are computers. Home computers were only beginning to enter the culture in 1983. Gus Gorman’s computing skills, with some assistance from satellites, can do just about anything. Like control the weather or redirected entire fleets of ships. This subtext – that computers will kill us all – becomes literal in the last act. Gorman and Webster build a giant, uber-powerful supercomputer. The machine intuitively understands anyone’s weakness, pulling a Kryptonite ray out of its ass. The computer later comes to life. In a moment that traumatized numerous kids, the computer assimilates Vera Webster, turning her into a weird robot. It ties up Superman with wires and cords. Since the script is so scattershot, it has to cobble together a proper threat for Superman to fight in the last act. It’s such a clear example of how poorly thought out a film “Superman III” is.

Even the special effects and music aren’t as good. “Superman III” has Christopher Reeves’ fantastically earnest performance and Annette O’Tool’s Lana Lang in its corner. Otherwise, it comes off as a sloppily assembled sequel, without much focus, assembling too many unrelated ideas. It doesn’t match up to “Superman: The Movie.” It doesn’t even match up to “Superman II.” Sadly, this wouldn’t be the low point for this particular incarnation of the franchise. [5/10]

Recent Watches: Superman II (1980)

“Superman” and “Superman II” were to be shot simultaneously. This was the plan anyway. However, as production ran on and the budget soared, Richard Donner made the decision to focus on finishing the first movie. If “Superman” bombed, no one would want to see the sequel anyway, right? By this point, Donner had already shot most of part two. After the original was a success, production resumed on the sequel. But without Richard Donner. The director’s relationship with the producers was so toxic, he wasn’t invited back to finish the movie he started. Richard Lester, who previously made “The Three Musketeers” and “The Four Musketeers” for the Salkinds, finished the movie. When “Superman II” flew into theaters in 1980, Lester received the sole directorial credit. Years later, Donner was given the chance to cut together his version of “Superman II.” This allows the rare oppretunity to review two different versions of the same movie.

The seeds for “Superman II” were planted in the original. General Zod and his followers, Ursa and Non, were imprisoned by Jor-El and the Kryptonian council for the act of treason. Trapped in the Phantom Zone before the planet’s destruction, their inter-dimensional jail cell was sent flying through the cosmos. A stray nuclear missile – whose origin varies depending on which version you’re watching – collides with the villains’ prison. Freed, the trio heads towards Earth, the yellow rays of our sun gifting them with the same powers as Superman. Zod quickly begins to conquer Earth. Meanwhile, Lois Lane discovers that Clark Kent is Superman, causing their relationship to heat up. That love affair puts Superman, and the world, at risk when Zod inevitably seeks out the son of the man who condemned him.

Gene Hackman was entertaining as Lex Luthor in the first “Superman.” However, his scenes were easily some of the weakest in the film. “Superman II” provides a stronger trio of villains for Superman to stand against. The Phantom Zone criminals provide a physical threat to the superhero. Luthor may be able to scheme a mighty plot but he can’t toss a bus through a building. Moreover, General Zod is wildly entertaining to watch. Terence Stamp’s authoritative voice makes an impression, as does his articulated delivery. The sadistic conqueror who quickly grows bored of victory allows Stamp to ham it up to gloriously entertaining heights. Sarah Douglas is also highly amusing as Ursa. She coolly executes her enemies, collecting trophies from her opponents. There’s a sly humor and an effortless sexiness to Douglas’ performance. Meanwhile, Jack O’Halloran certainly looks the part of Non. In Donner’s cut, he shows an intimidating physicality.

Richard Donner actively resisted the campy nature “Superman’s” producers expected, deciding to play the film as straight as possible. Richard Lester does not have the same inclination. Lester’s cut of “Superman II” is full of cornball humor. While on assignment in Niagara Falls, Clark Kent and Lois Lane stay in a ridiculous hotel room, which includes a bright pink bear skin rug and a vibrating bed. After arriving on Earth, Zod and his henchmen get into all sorts of shenanigans. The redneck police officers and fisherman react in typically broad fashions. Ursa cooks a snake with her heat vision, which Non attempts to chew on. Later, she arm-wrestles a yokel, tossing him through a table. They comically deface Mt. Rushmore. During the battle of Metropolis, the villains use their super-breath to blow ice cream cones into faces or phone booths over. Lester also seems to follow the Silver Age “New Powers as the Plot Demands Them” rule, as Superman and his opponents display previously unheard of abilities. Such as Super Cellophane or shooting telekinetic rays from their hands.

For all its campy excesses, even Richard Lester’s cut of “Superman II” features some entertaining action. Superman’s fight with Zod and his henchman has some impressive gags. A clever moment has Superman reflecting Zod’s heat vision back at him, the billboard behind the villain scorched. Superman tosses Non through a building or gets clothesline with a tossed man lid cover. Non and Superman disappear under the street, with the struggle being heard but unseen. Even distracting product placement from Coca-Cola, Marlboro, and KFC can’t sidetrack from the action factor. Donner’s cut of the film adds to the fight. Such as the villains ambushing Superman in the air, throwing him through the Statue of Liberty’s torch. Donner’s cut also patches up some of the shaky special effects seen in the theatrical version.

Both cuts of the film have a problem though. The evil Kryptonians wreck havoc for as long as they do because Superman is busy getting laid. Lois Lane not realizing Superman and Clark Kent are the same person has been a hacky pop culture punchline for decades. The movies recognize this problem. Lois figures it out in part two, testing Clark in various ways. The screenwriters realize that the relationship couldn’t progress without the truth coming out. The romance presents a new challenge for Superman: He has to choose between his love for Lois and his status as a hero. As charming as Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeves are together, the romance doesn’t seem so powerful that Clark would give up his powers for her. Mostly, it’s a script construction, raising the stakes for the hero. It also has the unfortunate side affect of weakening Kidder’s character, turning her from an active story member into an endangered love interest.

Both versions of the film suffer from a few of the same problems. Some of the returning cast gets shorted. Lex Luthor is back, escaping from the prison in an early scene. (Thankfully, this is the only scene Otis appears in too.) However, with Zod and his goons causing chaos, Luthor’s role can’t help but be diminished. He essentially functions as a plot device. He brings Zod to Metropolis, leading to the big fight in the middle of the film. Later, he leads the Kryptionians to the Fortress of Solitude. Though Hackman has some fun with the dialogue, such a strong villain being reduced to a lackey is disappointing. Jimmy Olsen and Perry White have tiny roles in both cuts. Ma Kent isn’t anywhere in either version. There’s a lot going on in the film, so this can be forgiven. But it’s still disappointing.

Even with these flaws, “The Richard Donner Cut” is generally superior. It is better paced, running twelve minutes shorter then the original cut. Most pressingly, Donner’s original vision clears up a major plot hole in Lester’s cut. In both cuts, after Superman willing gives up his powers, he realizes he’s defenseless against Zod. He journeys back to the Fortress of Solitude and discovers the green glowing crystal that built the place. And then, a few scenes later, he reappears with his power. So what exactly happened? Donner’s version clarifies this. The crystal activates one last hologram of Jor-El. Anticipating his son’s mistake, dear ol’ dad built in a last resort for such a situation. Clark regains his abilities but at the cost of loosing his father’s guidance, once and for all. It fills in a long wondered about blank and adds further emotional stock to the story.

Further benefiting the movie, Donner’s release excises most of Lester’s goofy humor. The humorous reaction shots, cornball civilians, and the bright pink bear skin rug are nowhere to be seen. Most of Non’s clownish antics are also removed. The Richard Donner Cut also features a stronger sound mix, better utilizing John Williams’ score. I can’t approve of all the changes made. The baffling final scene of Clark returning to the diner to brutalize a bully is maintained in both cuts. Superman wiping Lois’ memory with a kiss might have been a random decision. Yet it’s a little more elegant then him reversing time by flying around the Earth again. It’s a marginal improvement, instead of a massive one. Yet there’s still something to be said for that.

Both versions of “Superman II” are worth seeing. Christopher Reeves is still brilliantly cast. He was and still is the perfect Superman. Both cuts feature some entertaining action. Either version is a satisfying superhero action flick. However, the Donner cut is a little smoother and a lot less dumb. It’s not quite the long lost nerd ark fans hoped for but it’s still an improvement. Either way, the first two “Superman” movies pair together quite nicely. [Superman II: 7/10] [The Richard Donner Cut: 7/10]

Director Report Card: Richard Donner (1978)

6. Superman

The superhero movie is the defining genre of the modern day blockbuster. It’s been that way for about a decade now and the superhero’s reign atop the box office probably won’t end for a while longer. And none of that would’ve been possible without Richard Donner. So many crazy possibilities for 1978’s “Superman” were considered before the film went before cameras. Performers as divergent as Muhammad Ali, Burt Reynolds, Christopher Walken, Charles Bronson, and James Caan were considered for Superman. Filmmakers as far ranging as George Lucas, Sam Peckinpah, Francis Ford Coppola, and William Freidkin nearly directed the movie. When you know that, the guy who made “The Omen” seems like a less random choice. Ultimately, Donner’s displayed ability to root potential ridiculous material in reality made him an ideal fit for the subject. Debate about the film’s merits continues to this day but it’s clear our current superhero-obsessed environment wouldn’t have happened without “Superman.”

“Superman’s” influence on other modern day superhero flicks can be seen in other ways. It’s also an origin story. We begin on Krypton, with Kal-El as a baby. All the by-now familiar beats are present. Krypton is destroyed by a major ecological disaster but not before baby Kal-El is sent towards Earth in a rocket. Upon landing, the child is adopted by a kindly couple in Kansas. Kal-El grows up into Clark Kent, who has a steadfast morality and desire to help people instilled in him by his parents. Under the glow of Earth’s yellow sun, he has the powers of invulnerability, flight, super strength and more. He travels to Metropolis, gets a job at the Daily Planet, attracts the attention of follow reporter Lois Lane, and reveals himself to the world as Superman. But a hero like Superman will face challenges. Crime boss Lex Luthor is willing to endanger hundred of lives to make himself rich and he won’t let Superman stand in his way.

Mario Puzo’s original, 500-plus page screenplay was farcial. In a world where the sixties “Batman” series was still the defining superhero product, that’s the way things were. Richard Donner, however, recognized that superhero comics have the makings of modern mythology in them. “Superman: The Movie” approaches the story from a mythic prospective. This is established from the first scene, where a curtain opens and a child reads a comic book in black in white. Marlon Brando’s intonations as Jor-El are grave and serious, spoken like Shakespeare. Baby Clark’s trip through space is illustrated with colorful, psychedelic lights, which was likely inspired by “2001.” Later, a hologram of Jor-El guides his son through a cosmic history lesson, illustrated by nebulae and stars appearing on-screen. The film is enriched with heavy themes about destiny and the presence of good. Donner suggests a possible Christ parallel, with Jor-El sending his son to help the world. (This is an aspect later filmmakers would run with.) The film doesn’t treat Superman and his world like kid’s stuff. It’s a serious approach.

Except, you know, when it isn’t. Comic fans are a notoriously fickle lot. While many love 1978’s “Superman,” some despise the film for its perceived campiness. Some of this is simply a product of the time. When a young Clark Kent is racing alongside a speeding train, it’s one of the few truly bad special effects in the film. Other scenes are less forgivable. Lex Luthor is gifted with two bumbling side kicks. While Valerie Perrine’s Miss Teschmacher eventually affects the plot, Ned Beatty’s buffoonish cousin Otis contributes nothing but cringe worthy comic relief. The details of Luthor’s plan, which involves a remote control car, Perrine laying prone on the road, and a troop of horny soldiers, is hard to take seriously. The humor in “Superman” can be quite broad and I can see why that would put some people off.

The film’s special effects were groundbreaking at the time. With a few exceptions, they hold up excellently. The flight effects were accomplished through a combination of wire work and primitive blue screen technology. Occasionally, the technique can be awkward. However, the pure joy of flight, the movement and speed, are beautifully conveyed. Superman sails easily over the cities. The miniature effects are also often fantastic, as large scale re-creations of the Brooklyn Bridge and Hoover Dam were built in the studio. The set and production design are also brilliant. The crystal spires of Krypton and the Fortress of Solitude have largely eclipsed any previous versions of those location. Though some aspects have undeniably aged, the special effects in “Superman” are still impressive.

Pretty much every major box office star of the day were considered for the part of Superman. And all of them would have been terrible. Christopher Reeves was an unknown at the time, with few prior credits to his name. Waiting for an unknown was the right decision. Reeves perfectly grasps the personality of Superman. The character has derisively been called a big blue boyscout over the years, which has prompted many attempts to make Superman edgy. Yet Superman, in some ways, should be a wholesome, upstanding citizen. Reeves perfectly embodies somebody who does good because it’s the right thing to do. He has a buoyant sense of humor, an utterly charming smile and screen presence. He’s stern, but never cruel, with wrong-doers. He’s perfect. Many dislike the film’s discussion to make Clark Kent a bumbling dork. Yet Reeves makes that work as well, making Clark as funny, charming, and human as his superpowered alter ego.

Another plot element brilliantly understood by “Superman: The Movie” that other adaptations would miss the boat on was the importance of Superman’s duel parentage. He’s a child of two worlds, a god among men and a Kansas farm boy. His alien father, Jor-El, pursues Clark towards knowledge and a drive to save the world. Yet Jonathan and Martha Kent provide Superman with his moral code. Ultimately, that humanistic value is what directs Superman. Marlon Brando might have read his lines off cue cards but he imbues Jor-El with an epic, mythic quality. Glen Ford’s Pa Kent, meanwhile, is earthy, charming, funny, and wise. His sudden death is a powerful moment, showing the audience that there are things even Superman can’t stop. Phyllis Thaxter’s Ma Kent is warm, sweet, and supportive. The final act, where Superman defies his birth father’s law in order to help others, shows that the Kents’ teaching Clark to save people is more important this his grand destiny as the Last Son of Krypton.

“Superman: The Movie” reaches its giddiest high when it devotes a montage to Superman saving the day all over Metropolis. Some of his heroics are big. He rescues Lois Lane from a fall, hefting a helicopter easily with one hand. Superman lands on a boat loaded with escaping bank robbers. He then delivers the boat to the police department. Yet some of his heroic acts are smaller. He gently plucks a little girl’s cat out of a tree. Just by appearing, he foils a cat burglar climbing a building. There’s a gleeful quality to these scenes: A hero who can fly through the sky, and right all wrongs, both small and large, delivering justice with a fair, even, and never cruel hand. This is the dream of the superhero, presented at its most pure and joyous.

Also linking Clark to Earth is his romance with Lois Lane. Many actresses competed for the part, among them tantalizing choices like Lesley Ann Warren or Stockard Channing. Ultimately, Margo Kidder won the role. Kidder’s Lois brings a lot of humor to the film. Her nonchalant pursuit of grisly news story creates a few laughs. My favorite version of Lois is the tough lady of action of the Max Flesicher cartoons. Kidder doesn’t have this attribute. However, her snarky sense of humor and casual charm takes the part far. Moreover, Kidder has fantastic chemistry with Reeves. Lois and Superman’s scenes together make it clear that she’s totally smitten with the hero. How couldn’t she be? This relationship makes potentially laughable scenes, like the infamous “Can You Read My Mind?” moment, more successful then they’d be otherwise.

Reeves obviously not being a marquee star at the time, he gets third billing behind Brando and Gene Hackman. Hackman plays Lex Luthor. The scenes revolving around Luthor are the moments of the film that have aged the poorest. Luthor’s swanky underground lair and ridiculous seventies fashion date the film immediately. It’s no fault of Hackman. Hackman emphasizes Luthor’s arrogance above his other attributes. He challenges Superman because he knows he can. When placing a Kryptonite necklace around Clark’s neck, he relishes in his enemy’s defeat. He’s also an evil bastard. When communicating with Superman over a hyper-sonic radio wave, he casually proclaims his plan to murder hundreds of Metropolians. His ultimate scheme involves sinking California into the sea, all to make himself rich. Even Treschmacher asking Lex to spare her mom doesn’t phase him. If you squint, you can see the blueprint of Luthor’s modern incarnation of a ruthless businessman in Hackman’s performance. If Superman represents the best of humanity, Lex represents man at its greediest and pitiless.

One element of “Superman” is more criticized then any other. I’m talking about that ending. Which has Superman flying under the Earth’s crust and lifting the San Andreas fault line back up into place. This is, somewhat inelegantly, demonstrated by showing the impressive effect of the fault line crumbling and playing it in reverse. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Of course, far more infamous then that is Superman punching physics in the face and reversing time… By flying around the planet backwards really fast? Okay, I know that doesn’t work that way. Yes, it’s silly and certainly raises far more questions then it resolves. However, even this goofy moment has a powerful element to it. When Clark discovers Lois’ dead body, pulling it out of the wreckage, he screams towards the heavens. Considering how calm and cool Superman has been throughout the film, seeing him become so enraged, so overwhelm with grief, is striking. His relief and joy when Lois is successfully revived is similarly touching.

John Williams is a composer who has created some of the most iconic film music of all time. Standing along side “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” as his greatest works is his “Superman” theme. The music builds and builds towards a sweeping, uplifting burst of horns. The instrumentation seems to actually speak Superman’s name, announcing the hero’s arrival. The swift combination of strings and brass creates a rushing sensation, mimicking the feeling of flight. It’s a fantastic, powerful score, perfectly suiting the character and the movie.

“Superman” was shot simultaneously with its sequel. The film ends with an announcement that the character will return in “Superman II.” One of the earliest scenes in the movie sets up the sequel, by introducing General Zod, Ursa, and Non, as well as their imprisonment. This proves that sequel hooks and franchise building were with the superhero genre from the beginning. Though not a perfect film, “Superman” is still a hugely entertaining, deeply satisfying, and beautifully orchestrated picture. It’s giddy joys overwhelm its flaws, such as occasionally soft special effects or bursts of campy goofiness. 38 years later and it’s still the best “Superman” movie. [Grade: A-]

Bangers n' Mash 20: Nerd Vomit with a Vengeance

It's my birthday and here's a new episode of the Bangers n' Mash Show.



Here's our second Nerd Vomit episode this summer and our third overall. You might as well call this one the "Man of Steel" episode, as that's what we talk about for most of the recording. As we did with "Iron Man 3," we recorded some pre-show thoughts as well as our first impressions of the film after seeing it. This would have been far more relevant if it had gone up a week ago but, you know me. I've got to edit like crazy. (And it shows.) So here's us discussing a week old movie like it's still brand new.

Aside from Superman, we cover all sorts of topics, from Bruce Lee, the Loony Tunes, Alan Moore, Akira Kurosawa and William Shakespeare, not to mention a heaping helping of Nerd News! But it all comes back to Superman. We'll only do one more Nerd Vomit this summer, I promise. And horror next time! Seriously!

Concerning this blog specifically, I have two large Report Cards in the work. Hopefully, I will start posting one of those within the month, though no guarantees. Odds are good that you won't see me again until July.

The Eternal Debate: Batman vs. Superman

What’s this? Comic book talk? What the hell does that have to do with movies? The name of the blog is, “Film Thoughts,” not “Random Nerdy Thoughts That Wander Into Your Brain and You Feel the Need to Expound On,” Zack. That’s true and I wager I might be alienating my audience with this one. (Whatever audience it is that I have.) Never mind all of that. Today I’m here to ponder on perhaps the biggest debate in all of nerdom! Kirk vs. Picard? No! (By the way: Kirk.) I’m talking Batman vs. Superman! Which one do I prefer?

And who’s to say this debate isn’t film-related? Lots of directors and media types have felt the need to weigh in on this issue. In “Kill Bill Vol. 2,” Tarrantino, through his proxy of Bill, made a wildly out-of-date statement that Superman’s secret identity of Clark Kent and Clark’s buffoonish behavior is some sort of meta-comment on humanity. Not knowing what the hell he was talking about didn’t stop QT from stating his opinion, not that it ever does, so it shouldn’t stop me!

For a fact, a media-type stating his grossly misinformed opinion is what brought me here to today. On one of the message boards I frequent, for whatever reasons, somebody dug up the introduction Stephen King wrote for Batman, issue 400, from back in the eighties. Unsurprisingly, considering the kind of fiction King writes, (The bloated, self-indulgent kind? Thank you.) the horror scribe professes his preference for the Dark Knight over the Man of Steel. Anybody who has found themselves involved in this or a similar debate among other nerdy types have probably heard a lot of the same points that King trots out. He can’t relate to Superman because he’s too alien, too powerful, too over-the-top. Batman is more down-to-earth, more serious, more relatable for a mere human being. Assuming Stephen King is a mere human being. It’s many of the same trite points comic nerds have been listening too since at least the nineteen thirties.

People saying they prefer Batman because they can't relate to Superman, because he's an alien, because he's super-strong, etc., has never made a lot of sense to me. First off, these people have probably never read that many actual comic books. Especially the ones where Batman fights a Rainbow Monster or is reincarnated as a caveman or whatever. Comic books are uniformly ridiculous and any character that’s been around for more then a decade, much less half a century, have probably had some pretty embarrassing shit happen to them.

Besides, saying that Superman’s innate alieness makes him fundamentally unrelatable doesn’t wash. Superman might be an alien but he was raised by humans. He has a human's heart and belief system. Superman is the ultimate humanist. He could totally destroy all of our societies but he doesn't because he believes in humanity's values. A writer who gets the character, like Grant Morrison for example, understand that. He is absurdly powerful but, instead of looking down on humanity, he looks up to it. As for his superpowers, there are no more or less ridiculous then anything else in a comic book. Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound and has Super Ventriloquism, but Batman has also traveled to Zur-En-Arrh and thrown around Bat-Shark-Repellant. Bat-Mite is canon. You can’t tell me he isn’t.

Saying you can’t relate to Superman because he’s an alien is like saying you can't relate to Batman because he’s a billionaire. Use you’re imagination, people. Do you only watch movies with characters you can relate to on a deeply personal level?

The belief that Batman is more rooted in reality then Superman is also ridiculous. Once you apply even an ounce of critical thinking to the Batman universe, it all falls apart. If Bruce Wayne really wanted to stop crime in Gotham City, instead of investing millions in a personal war on crime he can never win, how about creating factories in low-income neighborhoods in Gotham City so that poor families aren't forced to turn to crime to sustain themselves? Or invest in social reform programs, like better schools or prisons centered around rehabilitation instead of costly, ineffective prolonged imprisonment? Or, at the very least, why not throw some money at Arkham Asylum, so they can improve their security and don't have the Joker breaking out every three months and murdering a shitload of people? Moreover, how come I can count the number of people who have figured out that Bruce Wayne is Batman on one hand? How many people in Gotham have the resources and free time necessary to carry on such a hobby? No body but Hugo Strange or Hush can process-of-elimination that shit out? All of this is excluding the fact that a mental case dressed as a bat beating up a clown is inherently more gritty and serious then a man in spandex that can fly. There’s a certain level of suspension of disbelief involved with all of the characters. There has to be. Obviously. Arguing your preference for one character or another based on their nebulous “realism” is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

I actually do love both characters. There have been some incredible Batman stories written over the years. (Whatever Happened to the Cape Crusader? is one of my favorites.) But people saying they prefer Batman over Superman because the former is more relatable or realistic clearly haven't thought it all the way through. And probably haven’t actually read a comic book anytime recently, or at all. They've both existed in the same universe, least we forget. They both hung out with Martian Manhunter and fought a giant starfish. Superhero comics are dumb and that's actually what's fun about them. Anything is possible and the adventure always continues. 

Not that I'm saying comics have to be silly to be fun. Or that comic's should always be fun. These characters are incredibly versatile. You can literally tell any kind of story with them. This might be why sometimes my superhero fandom actually outweighs my horror fandom, since you can tell a serious melodrama about Batman and have it possibly work, why the same logic probably wouldn't apply to Jason Voorhees. (Though I would love to see someone try!) You can say that about Dracula, Frankenstein, or other classic horror characters, who are just as, if not more, versatile. That’s the thing with these characters. They live forever. They all outlive their creators and whatever original intentions those creators might have had. We will still be telling Superman and Batman stories fifty years from now. Don’t tell me we won’t. Future authors and current ones should be able to reinterpret these characters in whatever crazy permutations they want. Even if it means turning Superman into a gun-obsessed Hitler-killer with a Santa Beard. Or Batman into a cop-murdering, Black Canary-banging goddamned sociopath.

It always helps to have a sense of scale, perspective, and, most importantly, humor about this sort of thing. Sometimes the readers, and especially the writers, need to step back and take a deeper look. Realize that, why it's okay to take this goofy stuff seriously sometimes, that it can be a rewarding experience, you've got to level it out some too. Look, I like Geoff Johns, really I do. Even accepting the bad stuff, I do. But surely he had to have a moment when he typed the words: "Zombie Elongated Man eats her heart" and thought to himself just what the hell he's doing. (Or maybe he was too busy thinking, “They are paying me a shitload of money to write glorified fanficiton about the stuff I loved when I was seven!” That’s probably what I would be thinking.)

Anyway, all of that is really besides the point. I really wandered off-topic, didn’t I? I guess my thesis here is that saying you prefer Batman over Superman because he’s more realistic or whatever is an inherently misinformed and flawed argument. And a total copout. Like one because he’s got a cooler costume or a better rogue gallery or supporting cast. If you say Batman is better because his villains are more interesting, you might have a point. If you say Superman is superior because his powers are more dynamic or his supporting cast more varied, I could conceivably agree with you. The realism fallback is an excuse argument for plebs and normals. (Of course, none of the I-feel-totally-reasonable-points raised in this article will stop the plebs and normals from totally using the exact same reasoning I’ve criticized here. Because those people are stupid and they should shut up forever. At the very least, you should ignore them forever.)

I certainly don’t think a preference for one or the other makes some sort of deeper Freudian statement about you. Batman might be Dark most of the time and Superman might be Light most of the time, but not all the time. You certainly can’t say that one is a Goodie-Goodie-Two-Shoes while the other is some Angsty Dark Avenger of the Night. Both have been squarely Lawful Good over and over again throughout their publishing career and both got retarded in the nineties. It really doesn’t reflect anything on you as a human being or a nerd. Let’s not pretend that any of our comic book heroes are more or less inane then the other.

But getting back to the central debate at hand here. Don’t think you’re getting out of here without me answering the question at the heart of the matter here. Who do I prefer on a strictly non-objective, totally personal level: Batman or Superman? That answer is easy, my friend: 

Aquaman.

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2000-2006)

4. X-Men

As his past films proved, (especially “The Usual Suspects”) Bryan Singer can do good stuff with ensemble films. And if “X-Men” is nothing else, it is an ensemble film. That the picture’s greatest strength. How the character’s personalities, as well as their superpowers, are understood shortly after meeting them. As soon as we understand those things, the fun stuff, mainly how they interact, can start.The film spends most of it’s time focusing on the cast and even then some characters are left underdeveloped. The story also takes a back seat and is not as strong as it probably should be which means the experience as a whole is not completely satisfying.

Still, on a superhero movie level, “X-Men” is highly successful. The action sequences are well done, the movie is fun, and many of the characters are a case of actor and material being perfectly matched. (Halle Berry aside, everybody gives a great performance.) [Grade: B+]


5. X2
First off, this sequel improves upon its predecessor by shaping a much stronger story. The tale builds to a nice tension by the end and all the pieces are expertly set up. It maintains the problem of having too many characters and some cast members are underdeveloped or underused. (I’m glad I’m not a Cyclops fan as his part has been reduced significantly.) The movie is smart enough to leave enough room for new characters however, allowing Alan Cummings as Nightcrawler and Brain Cox as General Stryker to shine in their respective parts.

The action scenes are a step-up too. Magnento’s escape, Nightcrawler’s White House assault, the invasion on the school, and Wolverine’s fight with Lady Deathstrike are all memorable set-pieces. While this film is superior to the first, generally speaking, it lacks that sense of comic book fun and excitement that is really necessary for a project such as this. While it’s not a big issue, I think the film takes itself maybe a little too seriously. Still, “X2” is a great sequel. [Grade: A-]


6. Superman Returns
Visually, this is Bryon Singer's best looking film. His camera dances in and around scenes in a way that I didn't really expect from him. Many of the effects are beautifully done. Not once did I point at an effect and say, "That looks fake." Most notable is the big airplane crash scene, which is just a very well staged, thrilling, and brilliantly paced scene. Kevin Spacey, though a little broad at times, seems to be having a pretty good time playing Lex Luthor. And for a movie that is nearly three hours long, not once did I stop to check the time.My biggest complaint with this film is the acting from the two leads. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane never really convinced me. Brandon Routh lacks a certain charm and all the good stuff he does is basically just ripped from Chris Reeve's performance. Because of this their relationship is never quite as emotionally involving as it should be. What really saves the movie, in the end, is that it's just so heartfelt. Singer's love for the character and the material is palpable. The whole thing is just a big fuzzy love-letter to the Christopher Reeve films, and maybe to a lesser degree, the whole idea of comic book heroes. I'm still not sure if that's a good thing, in the long run, as a fresher approach probably would have been better. Yet this is still a highly enjoyable film and great summer blockbuster fare. Now if only they had found a better actor to play Superman. [Grade: A-]