Victory_Over_Trolls

Marvel's Avengers or whatever it's called in your country is the culmination of the Marvel movies that have been released promising a massive team-up between the Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and more.

The ambitious film does a decent job of weaving together the various heroes so that it feels like they all serve a purpose in the film. It might seem, on first glance, hard to swallow that a film will find a character like Hawkeye as important as Thor, and one might be afraid the stalwart Captain America would be short-changed by the immensely popular Iron Man, but thankfully the characters are given reasonably equitable amounts of screen-time.

Superhero films tend to be somewhat predictable, but despite the amount of promotional material released, that's one thing the film is not. I'm writing a spoiler-free review, but all I can say is that when you think you know where the film is headed, Dr Banner and his alter- ego manage to mix things up.

In typical Marvel style, there are some loose ends and some mid/post-credits scenes. Stick around for the mid-credit scene if you're a longtime Marvel fan, but the end-credit scene adds very little to the experience unless you're extremely hardcore.

Highly recommended for anyone who's into superhero films. For everyone else, it's an exciting action film, but if you haven't seen the other Marvel films (especially Thor), it's going to be hard to follow, but just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I couldn't even decide on whether to give it a 7 or 8, and the 8 almost won out if it would have meant it would stay higher than SUPERMAN RETURNS: for that is the benchmark for how wrong Warners can get Superman and yet fool so many people into thinking it's "really Superman."

As for this film, it's a little better, but still has its problems, so it gets a 7.

The relationship between Lois and Superman is such that they appear to be sleeping together, but she doesn't know he's really Clark Kent. This IS decidedly un-Superman-like; however, the film is advertised as being one with more of a "badder" Superman and as generally being "darker." It doesn't pee on our shoes and tell us it's raining like SUPERMAN RETURNS.

The story is a loose adaptation of not one, but THREE Superman sagas, that were later graphic novels: "Doomsday" (a.k.a. THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN), "Funeral for a Friend," (a.k.a. WORLD WITHOUT A SUPERMAN), and "Reign of the Supermen" (a.k.a. THE RETURN OF SUPERMAN). Doomsday's origin is very different, as are aspects of Superman's life before the battle. No other super-heroes are mentioned. And perhaps most radical (and disappointing) is the exclusion of the four alternate Supermen of the comics.

Instead, Superman dies at the hands of Doomsday, who was unearthed by employees of Lex Luthor. He starts his rampage and Superman dies. Afterwards, a mysterious new Superman emerges. It's not long before we learn that he/it was created by Lex Luthor to take the place of Superman. The clone eventually becomes a tyrannical overlord of Metropolis and the real Superman--at reduced power--has to take him out.

Some will object to the language, the relationship of Lois and Supes, and some of the more violent scenes. The character of Toyman is the first victim of the faux Supes, but some might even find it justified in that he'd killed a little girl. Moreover, when we first see the Toyman (designed to look like something out of Tim Burton's sketchbook, which may be significant to note) he has a bus full of kids trapped. Nothing is ever stated, but one must wonder if he's trying to imply that he's a child molester in this version of reality. The character designs are okay, but Superman might look a little too old for some peoples' tastes, and like Kate Bosworth in SUPERMAN RETURNS, Lois might look a tad young. For longtime fans of the SUPERMAN/JUSTICE LEAGUE cartoons of recent years, the new voices might take some getting used to.

The biggest problem with the film is that everything seems to happen too fast. We barely feel the loss of Superman before the impostor shows up. And like many superhero vehicles, there are certain things that are, perhaps, somewhat comicbookish. For one thing, Superman is revived at, say, 67%. What does that mean to the typical viewer? That he's 67% as strong as he usually is? If so, what are the upper limits? Is the "Superman" he's battling necessarily at 100% himself? And like so many comics, the anti-hero (the faux Superman)'s big crime is that he murdered Toyman and the film regards it as wrong. However, Superman himself appears to be trying to kill his doppleganger, making it seem somewhat hypocritical to say the least.

Ultimately, the story about Lex's Superman clone is just not as interesting as "Reign of the Supermen," which kept comic book fans guessing in 1993. Sure, the cat's out of the bag now, and it would be in need of some changes, but it's simply a better story. This mixed with mediocre character designs and ideas that are created simply for shock value, make this outing just pretty good as an experiment. I just hope future direct-to-DVD DC (that's a mouthful) projects are better.

First and foremost, there is an allegory in this picture. The Venom-suit (that I recall, it was never referred to as such, but who cares?) enhances Spidey (Tobey Maguire)'s powers and gives him an attitude problem. It becomes an addiction he needs to learn how to kick.

Okay then, let's start with the black costume. From a visual standpoint, I wish they'd patterned it after the comics, but it works well enough here. Anyway, the costume comes from a meteor which just seems to hit while Peter and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) are laxing on a web-hammock in the woods. Nowhere does the screenplay address where it comes from, nor does it play to the idea that if this meteor fell from the sky to Earth, that might have intrigued people. It's just kind-of off-putting (even to many people who DO read comics) that it shows up as if symbiotic alien blobs of goo arriving on Earth is a day-to-day occurrence.

Then there's the costume's vulnerability to sound. The idea that Parker discovers its weakness by accident while banging on a Church bell is one thing. The fact that he's banging on it in the first place is a little too contrived. Prior to this, there were scenes of Parker talking to Doctor Conners about the properties of this alien thing... they had the opportunity to actually SAY it is effected by sound, and they blew it. As for Venom himself? Well I don't know whether to blame the actor (Topher Grace), the script, or both; but Eddie Brock/Venom comes off as a dandy.

So what is it exactly this "costume" does? Well, it wraps itself around Spider-Man's costume and it enhances his powers. Unfortunately, it also makes him more aggressive. Upon learning that a villain called the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) was the real killer of his Uncle, the suit increases his aggression to the point where he decides to murder Sandman once he finds him responsible for another crime. He kills him--or so he thinks.

It doesn't just effect Spider-Man's ability to be tough on crime. It also makes him more aggressive toward Mary Jane. He actually talks the other love interest, Gwen Stacey (Bryce Dallas Howard) into going with him to a jazz club, where MJ is employed as a waitress/singer. He (somehow) gets on stage to play piano while she's singing, then cuts a rug. Then, he gets in a fight with the manager and security of the club, and hits them (and MJ) before realizing he needs to ditch the suit.

Sounds like a lot going on? That's not all! There's also the matter of Peter's former friend, Harry Osborne (James Franco), whose father was the Green Goblin. Early on in the film, he attacks Peter (both literally and figuratively) out of the blue. The altercation between the two of them leaves Harry unconscious, and he looses his short-term memory. Because of this, he doesn't remember that he blames Peter/Spidey for the death of his father, or even that they're the same person. Eventually, he DOES get his memory back (through a borderline-absurd sequence of events) and threatens Mary Jane into leaving Peter, saying there's "someone else." He then tells Peter that he is the other guy and eventually lures him into fighting him. This ends with Harry lobbing a pumpkin-bomb at Peter, which Peter throws back at him.

When we see him again (Pete just casually shows up and asks for his help... no, really) it makes no sense, because anyone watching this would have thought he was killed in the blast. Oh, sure, this is a superhero movie, and we need suspension of disbelief, but they could have at least SHOWED US BEFORE HAND THAT HE LIVED. They could have had his manservant save him from a pile of rubble, or had a "my face! My face!" scene. A little common sense! He tells Peter to leave. Then his butler convinces him that Goblin Sr. did die by his own hand. And so while Spidey is battling Sandman and Venom once they finally team up, he appears to aid him and Mary Jane.

Howard's character is somewhat overused. They try to use her character as an anchor for a lot of things... and in some cases, it's not necessary. There really wasn't a need for her to be Brock's girlfriend. It didn't add that much to his character or hers. Did they really need her to be the damsel he saved and who kissed him?

And as usual, the humor becomes a tad stale after a while. There are some--as was true in the others--which fall into the dreaded "camp" category, such as the Jazz-club scene, or the scene where he walks down the street with his collar up (parodying Saturday NIGHT FEVER). A lot of this comes off as self-indulgent.

Okay, so with all the negativity I've lobbed, it may seem odd that I'm not giving it a low rating. Well, for starters, I can't review it without referencing SUPERMAN RETURNS: a far worse movie that gave us a flaky deadbeat dad and said, "this is supposed to be SUPERMAN!!!" But also, there is plenty of good in it.

For its untanglable web of a story, there are many worthwhile scenes. Having said that their brand of comic-relief does get old after a while, the Daily Bugle supporting cast (J.K. Simmons, Elizabeth Banks, et. al.) are as good as ever, as is Rosemary Harris as Aunt May. And Spidey-newcomers Howard (daughter of the legendary Ron Howard) and Church bring their characters to life in a way that will please fans of Spider-Man (I mean, the three or four who haven't seen the film). They resemble their characters visually. Plus, Church is sympathetic, but tough; and Howard comes off as smart AND alluring. And while the special effects are still not perfect, the action sequences are mile-a-minute when they're there and certainly worth seeing.

I had previously posted a comment about this movie, where I bent over backwards to be fair to it. I even tried to ignore its most offensive element, after which it was a fairly acceptable popcorn movie, but nothing more.

Following the events of the first two Superman movies in a "vegue" way, Superman goes away for five years upon hearing the news that a scientist thinks Krypton didn't really blow up. He thinks this, he doesn't know. So Superman just jets off without telling anyone and returns five-years-later after finding out that it was, in fact, gone.

Right off the bat, we've got a problem. Superman just leaves. And they didn't even give him a heroic reason. He just feels like scoping it out. He wasn't trying to circumvent a disaster, and he wasn't chasing a villain. It was for himself. Why didn't he tell Lois? Who knows, except that the writers wanted her to get mad at him.

Anyway, Clark Kent returns to find that Lois has moved on with a new man and they have a son named Jason. The guy, named Richard, turns out to be a nice guy, too. This is a provocative situation. Should our hero win her back? Or will he move on and throw the classic legend to the wind?

Well, upon finding out about this... Superman follows her home and looks into her house with his x-ray vision and listens in on her conversations with his super hearing? Believe it or not, people have defended this, saying "well he has to... she won't tell him what he's been up to." Ever heard of minding your own business, Man of Steel?

In the meantime, Lois has written an article entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman," which is up for a Pulitzer. Are we sensing a theme here? In any other version, Lois would have at least trusted him enough to think that he had been killed or captured by a villain or something. Here, though, she's reduced to a jealous love-lorn bimbo! She's also played by a girl who looks like a teenager and has no spunk. People laud her maturity. They must have simply heard Singer use that word at some convention and grabbed onto it like a life preserver.

Now, obviously there's also a McGuffin of a fiend for him to vanquish. Lex Luthor has stolen crystal technology from the Fortress of Solitude and plans to use it to create a new continent full of this technology. Sadly, it'll kill billions of people and so, naturally, Superman has to stop it. I'll be fair and allow the coincidence that he just happens to arrive as Luthor is planning this. It's just... why would anyone live there?

Luthor is played comically here, as he was in the first of the Christopher Reeve films. This was criticized as being counter-productive then and it's downright foolish now.

So eventually Lois finds herself on the boat and we learn... yup... Superman is his real father.

That's right: Superman is the boy's real father. The movie tries--incredibly enough--to make the situation ambiguous, but it's more-than been agreed upon. While there have been some who have lauded this because it makes it more "realistic" and they find some scenes "moving," it robs the story of its innocence. Superman has become a father, without knowing it for five years. They have taken what should be a modern day fairy tale (with Superman being a male Cinderella for those familiar with the concept of a Cinderella complex) and turned him into an irresponsible loser who's knocked up his ex and left town before finding out.

How does any of this "symbolize hope?"

But there must have been some reason for this, so what's the payoff? He repeats one of Jor-El's monologues ("the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son... you will never be alone") and... flies off. After all, it was too late in the film to delve any deeper. Of course, they could have revealed this earlier instead of using it as a gimmicky plot twist, but no. This is Bryan Singer. In the meantime, what does Lois' husband think about all this, or has she chosen to tell him? We don't know. The film drops Richard like a snot-rag after they leave the ship. The monologue is the only pay-off. As for any other resolution as to what he and Lois plan to do... wait for the sequel. It's only three years! Well, two and a half this point!

So what about Lex's scheme? Superman has--by this point--been beaten by a team of Lex's lackeys with the help of some Kryptonite. Richard and Lois save him, and he winds up in the hospital. In a Deus-ex-Machina of epic proportions, Jason touches him and he is revived. He's so powerful, in fact, that he can lift the entire continent--even though it's caked in Kryptonite and a large protrusion extends so that it's about half-a-foot away from his face--and throw it into space. He doesn't get killed, because... well... they said so.

Remember, him spying on her and having the love child, that was to make him more "realistic" and "human."

Many have called this film a "backdoor remake" of the first movie, but that's not quite the case. It does go overkill on the "homages," which makes it derivative stylistically, but the major problem with all of this, is that it's a substitute for real emotion. It also appears to be Singer's attempt at making himself seem like more of a fan than he really is.

Aside from Bosworth, the casting is pretty good. But then Bosworth is Lois Lane, which is pretty important. As for Routh... he's pretty good as Clark Kent in a funny way, but as Superman he is beyond wooden. Everyone else is solid enough in their roles.

It's sad that almost any conversation you may have with someone my age about George Reeves will inevitably start out, "you mean Christopher Reeve?" To anyone growing up in the fifties, however, he WAS Superman.

And that's where we begin. When George Reeves died in 1959, there was a cloud of speculation from people who couldn't believe that the Man of Steel could have killed himself. It was the real end of the "age of innocence" for many. Did he kill himself thinking he was invulnerable like his TV counterpart? Was it the MGM executive whose wife had an affair with him? Or was it her, the wife of the studio head, who couldn't live without him? Maybe it was the woman he had taken up with after her. A house guest? A burglar? Or was it a cut-and-dry suicide?

Eh, the film isn't really about that. It's about Louis Simo, a fictional P.I. who investigates Reeves' death for (the same reason these hacks made this picture) publicity. He stumbled upon a bunch of clues which lead him to believe (as did many people at the time) that what the LAPD ruled a suicide, was actually a murder.

Reeves' story unfolds in flashbacks. As Reeves, Affleck is simply awful! He's terrible. None of Reeves' shines through, nor his authoritative manner. Reeves was the kind of guy who could get away with making a dirty joke. Affleck seems like a weasel when he does. He doesn't look like him either, despite putting on some weight (except in later scenes) and slicking his hair back. When he auditions for the role of Superman, and the casting directors are "blown away" by it, we never feel what they're directed to feel. As for the voice, Affleck either speaks in his own voice, or what sounds like an attempt to do Col. Sanders. George Reeves was the most manly and most fun actor to play Superman and who do they get? A pretty boy with no real sense of joy.

Still, there's also the fact that the film DOES come to a conclusion but is to afraid to say what they really think. Simo (Brody's character) confronts Mrs. Mannix and is roughed up by Mr. Mannix's boys. Mr. Mannix says, "you can't prove anything." But we don't get any scene that convicts him. They should have called this film WE'RE NOT SURE BUT WE THINK THE MGM GUY DID IT.

Along the way, there are some minor storytelling flaws, too. There's a needless subplot about Simo investigating some loser's wife (I guess it's just there to set up the kind of cases her normally handles, and it ends with the guy killing his wife... which nobody gives a rat's tail about) and there's a scene in which a strung-out Lenore Lemon calls Simo to tell him that, "Blah blah blah, George's mother didn't really love him and he didn't know his father until recently cuz she told him he killed himself when he didn't..." which may or may not be true, but it's so ridiculous that he just automatically takes her at her word and goes off to confront Reeves' mother. Finally, we're shown a newspaper saying that Mannix's wife died suspiciously... it doesn't quite make it clear enough that they're talking about a previous wife, so when we see Mrs. Mannix alive and well, it's like, "I'll have to look this one up."

Okay, then there's the general attitude this film has about sex. People just go around doing each other favors. Yes, I know Reeves was having an affair on top of an affair. They just don't have to be so juvenile with the subject matter. As with so many films, the dialog reminds me of stuff I've overheard the guys on the football team say in the locker room. And yet, because it's a period piece, it's "classy," it's "erotic." Please!

Finally, since this film is mainly about the Brody character, why did they have to use Reeves at all? Why not a separate based-on story? Well, because the story of Simo isn't anything to write home about. And because there is still a great deal of speculation that the filmmakers wanted to... how can I say this? Exploit... cash in on... that sort of thing.

As for the casting, the only real lousy one was Affleck. Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins were uniformly good. What's-her-name who played Lenore Lemon was also a great choice for a totally unlikable character. Brody carries the film, though, playing a deeply flawed, but at least involving lead.

As for this film's mentality, remember in SEINFELD when George Costanza was told that a married woman wanted to sleep with him and he said, "woo, an affair. That's so adult. It's like with stockings and martinis and William Holden," in one episode? Yeah, that pretty much sums up the films mentality.

While the first season showed some promise, this version of the Superman legend left much to be desired. While it had more fantastic and familiar foes and plots as opposed to the "Adventures of Superman"'s more generic gangsters, it doesn't have the same touch as Smallville, or (if memory serves) Superboy.

The show has okay special effects, but nothing spectacular. This time, it's mainly handled by green screen. They certainly don't rival the first three Christopher Reeve films, but they're arguably better than the fourth. While obligitorally better than those in the George Reeves series, they're just as one critic described the f/x in that series: cheesy, but acceptable.

The show, as many have said, got to levels of dopiness (not campiness, as to be "camp" it has to be played for laughs) that even the later episodes of "Adventures of Superman" reached. And unlike "Adventures," this version never had a gritty crime-drama feel. This version is more geared toward women, it seems like.

Dean Cain is likable, even refreshing, as Clark Kent. As Superman, though, he lacks the grace of Christopher Reeve, or the forceful charisma of George Reeves, or even the bravado of Kirk Alyn.

Teri Hatcher is okay as Lois Lane. The preconceived notion is that she's a more "liberated" version of the character, but she lacks the forceful manner of, say, Phyllis Coates (who played Lois' mother in some episodes) from the first season of "Adventures of..." and it was more remarkable to have a strong female in the 1950s, whereas in the 1990s, it's not exactly novel. Also, there are plenty of times in which she was captured. So much for not being a "damsel in distress."

John Shea, is somewhat bland as Lex, but he isn't any worse than most versions. He's portrayed as a crooked millionaire as he had become in the comics. Only occasionally does he do anything memorably threatening, but he has his moments. The rest of the villains vary in quality both from the actors and the writing.

There were two different Jimmy Olsens in the series (until "Smallville," every TV version of the show had a cast replacement in the first season). The first one had a little more character, but they both did what they needed to. The series curiously chooses to portray Perry White as a hillbilly, which is a mistake. However, it's not the actor's fault and the late Lane Smith fills out the role well. Ma and Pa Kent (still alive unlike in previous versions, though this change occurred in the comics after 1986) are played likeably.

This is hardly the best version of the Superman mythos in existence. However, it kept the character on TV in the early-to-mid-nineties until it was replaced by a superior animated version of the character. One redeeming feature is that it is geared to a different audience than previous Superman series, which reflects and helps the universal appeal of the character. Still, it just didn't go far enough in a lot of ways and too far in others.

While this serial is about as unfaithful an adaptation of a comic book character as there has ever been, it's still an entertaining piece that almost (not quite) holds up today.

Captain America in this serial is not a private named Steve Rogers, but a District Attorney named Grant Gardner. Instead of Bucky (and, in later years, Falcon, Battlestar, Diamondback, and various Avengers) he has an assistant named Gail. The bad guy is not one that's found in the typical Captain America rogues gallery, but a mind controlling fiend called the Scarab. And instead of a "mighty shield," he carries a pistol and that's about it.

Given that, the serial is a fast paced adventure that is big on action. The various fight scenes in the movie are far beyond those in many serials of the day (and even later day action films, such as a certain 1989 excursion featuring another costumed crimefighter) and the stuntwork in the many cliffhangers is excellent.

The story is fairly standard: a scientist creates a device. The bad guy steals it. The heroes try to find out who he is. Interestingly, the film gives the audience his secret identity in the first chapter. While mysteries are better in theory, this works because it allows the Scarab to have more of a personality.

Dick Purcell is likable as Captain America, although it takes time before you get used to seeing him in his costume. He almost looks more "Captain America-ish" as Grant Gardner. Lorna Gray is superb as Gail rivaling most serial-era heroines.

The serial isn't perfect, of course, including sometimes lackadaisical cliffhangers. There is no origin provided for Captain America. That he has any abilities similar to those he had/has in the comics (given to him by the so-called Super Soldier serum, which is also mentioned not once) is never even implied. In fact, his reason for donning the costume in the first place is unknown. The scenes wherein Grant Gardner takes matters into his own hands underscore the notion that Captain America never seems to do anything that a really tough DA couldn't do. The relationship between he and Gail is also hard to understand. They never seem to be romantically involved, no matter how intense the situation. They could be related, but there's no allusion to that. The mundane truth seems to be that she simply works for a DA who decided to become Captain America. Interestingly (and, for some, disappointingly, no doubt) there is no mention of wartime concerns such as, well, the war.

Despite this, the serial is engaging, charming and often suspenseful. The action sequences are miles ahead of many of the era's best stunts and the sheer charm of the movie makes it an entertaining watch.

This two-part miniseries (long enough to be a week-long miniseries if each episode was an hour), was at times overly dramatic, somewhat lacking in humor and even kind-of depressing. Still, it's one of the best music bios ever.

The absolute best thing about this piece is Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs. Hilton-Jacobs captures the menace of the notorious Joseph Jackson. He is a father you would NOT want to disobey. On the other hand, he brings a level of humanity and respectability, sometimes even likability to the role that makes it a three-dimensional character. In many music bios, it's hard to believe they're talking about real people (exhibit A: The Doors), but not here. Hilton-Jacobs expresses Jackson's deep, cutting flaws, but also the good things about him.

As for the bigger stars in the two-parter, Vanessa Williams is likable as Susan de Passe: a Motown employee who believes so much in the boys that she convinces Berry Gordy to hear them. Billy Dee Williams is likable as Gordy, but he comes off as a saintly carefree sort. Angela Basset also excelled as the boys' mother: willing to sacrifice her goals and dreams for the sake of the family.

All three actors who played Michael were also fantastic. It's so sad that Wylie Draper died so soon after this movie came out. He really captured Michael as well as anybody could. He reminds the viewer of what people saw in Michael in the early 80s. Alex Burral and Jason Weaver also performed great as Michael, especially during the music scenes. The actors who played Michael's brothers fared also. While it clearly centers around Michael, it goes to great lengths not to make the other boys second-bananas (the only one who isn't explored much is Janet, ironically, because her fame rivals that of Michael in real life).

Speaking of the music scenes, they are almost all very well done. The scenes where they appear to be lipsynching songs (such as when they record "I'll Be There" are done pretty well, but when the actors (presumably) get to handle it on their own, it really comes alive, whether it's the kids singing old r&b classics toward the beginning, or the final concert scene at the end with a lively version of "The Love You Save."

All in all, great music and great acting make this movie one of the best rock bios of all.

Here we have a clear-cut example of a superhero film that, in the hands of another director, might have been amazing. It's a guilty pleasure for some and a nightmare for others. As is the case with BATMAN FOREVER, this film is lumped in with its bomby successor and not given a fair trial. As with the other Superman films, however, the cast (at-least the good guys) give the film a major boost.

The opening salvo basically sets the tone for the rest of the movie. If you like the pre-credits scene, then you'll like the rest of the movie. If not, turn it off.

The plot involves a man named Gus Voorman (Richard Pryor) who gets tangled up with his evil boss, Ross Webster (uh...), his mean sister (uh...) and his blonde kept-girl (uh...). These three villains make Lex n' co from part 1 look like Zod n' co from part 2. They could have made it "about computers" (you have to admit, it was ahead of its time in that) and had Brainiac be the bad guy or something. People always complain that Pryor wasn't "at his best," during this film, but if he were that might have been inappropriate for a PG film.

What makes this film better than people say (and what leads me to believe it could have been better) is the subplot involving Clark's return to Smallville. Annette O'Toole (who plays Clark's mother Martha Kent on SMALLVILLE) is fantastic as Lana Lang. She rivals Margot Kidder's Lois mainly because she added something new to the character. In the comics of the Silver Age, she was supposed to be Superboy's Lois. Then Lana began appearing in Superman stories and basically became Lois's red-headed counterpart. Here, she's the opposite of Lois: considerate, down to Earth and in love with Clark more than with Superman. This carried over into the comics when Superman's history was revamped in 1986, and his choosing Lois over her hints at a slight masochistic streak (understandable for an invulnerable man).

SPOILER WARNING!!! The story takes a turn when Superman goes bad. It's a result of what is essentially red kryptonite (even though it's still green) and it starts with negligence, then he engages in pranks and acts surly. Aside from being seduced by the blonde chick into destroying an oil tanker or something, "bad" Superman doesn't do anything THAT bad. It's not like he kills someone. Whatever, he splits into two people. One, the bad one, is still in his Superman costume (albiet, he's unshaven and it's darker) and the other, the good one, is in the guise of Clark Kent. This hints at some really fascinating symbolism. Is it because Superman is a pretension that attracts women like Lois and Clark is who he really is deep down and he should be with Lana? Is it because Superman is a false idol who fights battles the human race should fight for themselves, and Clark is a reporter who gives people the knowledge to do that and is the part of him that makes an honest living? Is it because Superman is a jock and Clark is a nerd? Sadly, they're just Supes and Clark so you can tell them apart. They might as well have replaced him with the red-garbed "player 2" Superman from the arcade game.

The special effects in this film are an improvement over the second one. Unless you're a kid, they won't knock your socks off, but they're mostly fairly convincing and they're more at-the-service of the actors. As a fight scene, the Supes vs Clark scene is surprisingly vibrant and Reeve and Lester pull it off well. There's also a sequence at a chemical plant (which does have a payoff at the end) that's very well done.

Anyway, the villains are truly uninspired and that's really what hurts the film (although, Webster does prefigure the post-Crisis Lex). If Superman was given a more compelling antagonist and if they'd played on the strengths of the subplot more, it could have been the best in the whole series.

I really, REALLY, wanted to like this movie. It's about my favorite character, it's got three really good villains, it could have been really ahead of its time. Sadly, it's more of it's time, and unlike its predecessor, it doesn't have the same scope or depth.

SPOILER WARNING!!! It's hard to explain how using the crystals in the Fortress of Solitude, he can "talk to" his departed Kryptonian parents, but basically his mother, Lara, takes away his powers as a result of his wanting to be with Lois. When he steps into the chamber, it's a grotesque montage of different (unnecessary) effects. Later, when he goes to get his powers back, there's no explanation or condition as to what makes them change their minds (or, come to think of it, why he should let them take his powers away in the first place).

It's bad enough that the opening scene is paced so slowly that we're just thankful that he gets there the same day (he should be able to get from the States to the Eiffel Tower quicker than that), when the film slows down to the more intimate scenes, it feels slow. Not as slow as the first Batman movie, but still: slow. Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve are great, but the Niagra Falls setting does little to add interest. When it moves to the Fortress, it's a little better, but then it takes us to the scene where he gives up his powers, which leads to an unnecessary scene showing them in bed. It doesn't show any nudity and isn't raunchy or anything, but nothing happens and it might make kids uncomfortable.

The villains in this movie are pretty cool. Gene Hackman returns as Lex Luthor, but quickly jettisons his bumbling team of goof balls. The three kryptonian bad guys give powerful performances. Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglass are authoritative while sadistic, and Jack O'Halloran is threatening as NON, "the big one." Lacking dialog (per his request) he does a great job of conveying his emotions with facial expressions. Anyway, SPOILER WARNING, when they take over Washington, it's a good scene. It's how all of the scenes show have been. Sarah Douglass tosses people around like paper. I think it's safe to say that that was probably a Donner scene.

As for the special effects, there's a scene where the three bad guys take over a town in Texas. It's okay, but there's a scene in which Zod deflects a flame thrower with his super breath. It's glaringly fake. There are other less-than-convincing F/X elsewhere (but there are also some good ones). Plus, as is common in some Superman vehicles, the powers are inconsistent. Zod appears to have telekinesis: a power Superman never demonstrated. The Fortress scene shows them teleporting, as well. And then there's what Superman does to make Lois "forget" that he's really Clark Kent. Finally, the climax in Time Square is far too choreographed. Moreover, the civilians in the city don't seem particularly scared of what's going on. They almost look like Superman and his enemies are putting on a show for them. "This is gonna be good," says one guy. "Man, Superman didn't do nothing'," says a kid.

When the first Superman film was released on DVD, I thought, "here we go." It was given the treatment it deserved. I thought this might be re-cut and have documentaries and stuff like the first one. No such luck. As if it were one of the first DVDs ever released, all it has is chapter selection, optional subtitles, a cast & crew thing, and a (pretty cool) trailer. It's not without its audience, but unlike the first one, it lacks that universal appeal.