This entire month 1LR has reflected upon the Superman movies and their different iterations. The bottom line? Despite Hollywood's best efforts to ruin Superman, the Big Blue Boyscout still saves most of these movies. All of them are far from perfect, however. Which causes us to ask the question, "Why is a Superman Movie so hard to write?" Could it be that Hollywood simply doesn't know what to do with an absolutely pure and good man? Hollywood literally took decades to put together Superman Returns and they STILL got it wrong. They seem to meddle with him at times to add different powers or to make him more "relate-able." At other times it seems like Hollywood wants to distract the audience from the main character with long subplots. The Superman movies are at their best when they allow Superman to be exactly what he is - an example for the rest of us to follow.
In the final analysis, here's how the Superman movies stack up according to this movie reviewer, ranked from best to worst:
- Superman: The Movie (original) - 18/20
- Superman: The Movie (Expanded Edition) - 17/20
- Superman II: The Richard Donnor Cut - 16/20
- Superman II -15/20
- Superman IV: The Quest for Peace -14/20
- Supergirl -12/20
- Superman III -10/20
- Superman Returns - 9/20
- Steel - 8/20
"Why is a Superman Movie so hard to write?"
ReplyDeleteOne thing for me, and this goes waaaaay back to the George Reeve tv series, is you have a near limitless cosmic being in Superman who spends mos of the screen-time fighting the average thug. Even Lex Luthor, while brilliantly played by Gene Hackman, never came off as truly evil or menacing, just entertaining.
I think that's why fans regard Superman 2 in high regards, because he had to fight villains that were on par with him. I suppose a Superman reboot could include more cosmic-level villains to fight, but to the average non comic-book fan, the film would seem more fantastical and less down to earth.