Speaking With "Superman's Sister"

My search for the identity of the child actor who played the role of baby Kal-El in the first episode of The Adventures of Superman from 1952 has taken me far and wide. I've written to a dozen Superman experts with no concrete evidence.

You'll recall that I had previously received a tip from Captain Celluloid over at Superman Homepage that the infant was Aline Towne's own child.

Aline Towne in Superman from Earth

In researching Aline Towne, I came across her biography on www.imdb.com and noted that it had been edited by a Marta Waller. Aline was married to Charles Waller so I did a little research on Marta and was fairly confident that this was Aline's daughter. On the slim chance that Ms. Waller would feel inclined to respond to me, I sent her a missive. After all, she's a well respected newswoman and I was sure she'd be far to busy to reply to my questions.

Hello Ms. Waller,

I am trying to solve a mystery and I was wondering if you could help me. I am trying to identify the baby from the first episode the 1950's television show, The Adventures of Superman. I have a source that tells me that the child who played the baby Superman was the real-life child of Aline Towne who was featured in that episode. My source was unable to produce proof of this, however.

My research on the topic had lead me to think that you are Aline's daughter. I see you edited her biography on the Internet Movie Database so I'm assuming you're extremely knowledgeable about Aline Towne either way. =) 

I've attached a photo of the baby from the show. Can you help me identify this baby? I've been in contact with probably about 10 Superman experts and none of them can. 

Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Mr. Schaffer,

Thank you for your email.  It is always nice to see people are still interested in my mother's work from the 1950's.  Unfortunately, your source is not correct about the baby.  I wasn't born until late 1952 (and the photo is not me) and my brother was born in 1955.  I have no idea the identity of the infant, but I assume he would be about my age (60 this year).  I'm guessing really accurate records of "baby appearances" weren't a high priority in 1952. 

If there's any other trivia I can help with, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist.  Mom had a very interesting career, and it was fun telling everyone that our mom was Superman's mother!

Best regards, 

I sent an e-mail back to her inquiring about the third child of Aline Towne (a daughter) that is mentioned inthe www.imdb.com biography. She responded that her sister was born before her but since Ms. Waller didn't recognize the photo it couldn't be her older sister.\

It seems that I'll have to focus my research efforts elsewhere. Ms. Waller has been an enormous help to me and I'm very grateful for her assistance.

Who Was Baby Clark Kent? Mystery Continues, New Information!

As you may know, we're on a quest here at 1LR to discover the identify of the child actor who portrayed the baby Kal-El from the first episode of The Adventures of Superman. Here's the photo from the show:

Startling new information has just come in to 1LR from Superman expert Lou Koza - this same child actor appeared in another show! Here's the picture:

Much to my chagrin Mr. Koza was unable to remember which show this picture comes from! If you can help, please let me know! 

Baby Kal-El Mystery - New Information Presented!

I want to thank captaincelluloid from Superman Homepage for his tip regarding the mysterious identity of the baby Kal-El from the first episode of The Adventures of Superman.

According to him, the rumor is that baby Kal-El was played by none other than Aline Towne's own infant son. Aline Towne, of course, played Lana, Superman's biological Kryptonian mother in the same episode.

Aline Towne played Superman's real mother... could it have been her actual son who played baby Kal-El?

Rest assured, faithful reader, that 1LR is working tirelessly to verify or disprove this claim. We'll report back when we have more information to pass along.

Who Was Baby Clark Kent?

As I was watching the first Episode of The Adventures of Superman (1951), I wondered... who played the baby Kal-El? As far as I know, the role went uncredited. But that guy would only be 62 or so right now. I wonder who it was? I wonder what he went on to do with his life? 

I looked on www.imdb.com - The Internet Movie Database. They're exhaustive in the credits they have listed... but still, nothing. I even looked in their listings for the character "Clark Kent" but still... nothing.

Anyone out there with a tip or information that could help me solve this mystery, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm curious as to what the first baby Superman went on to do with his life.

The Adventures of Superman (1951)

I just watched the first disc of The Adventures of Superman from 1951 starring George Reeves. 

I appreciated it for what it was and the era it came from. I can see why this series is remembered fondly. I thought the strength of the series was the acting. Reeves makes for a very believable Clark Kent and Superman, although his Kent is very different from Christopher Reeve's. Christopher Reeve's Kent was a simpering wimp, more like Peter Parker. George Reeves's Kent is bold and self-confident. He often sets aside inquiries like, "Gosh, how'd you get here so quickly?" by taking control of the conversation by saying something like, "It's a long story. Now tell me what's the problem?" Jack Larson as Jimmy Olsen and John Hamilton as Perry White are both legendary. 

The plots are pure cheese, however. These mysteries seem more suited for Nancy Drew than Superman. Entire episodes revolve around a monkey in a Superman suit or men breaking plaster statues they paid for or a parrot that says, "Help! I'm drowning!" 

Plots aside, these are worth watching for every comic fan simply for their historical value. Reeves's Superman should make Brandon Routh's Superman ashamed. 

Superman Movies - Summary Reflection

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:

1. Superman: The Movie (original)                   - 18/20
2. Superman: The Movie (Expanded Edition)   - 17/20
3. Superman II: The Richard Donnor Cut         - 16/20
4. Superman II                                                 -15/20
5. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace              -14/20
6. Supergirl                                                      -12/20
7. Superman III                                                -10/20
8. Superman Returns                                        - 9/20
9. Steel                                                            - 8/20

Pray to God that the studio finally puts all of the pieces together in the upcoming Superman reboot.

Superman Movie Review: Steel

I was dreading watching Steel. To be complete in my Superman movie reviews, however, Bryan lent me his copy (which you can only get through the Warner Brothers Archives Collection, by the way). According to every account I heard, this movie is complete trash. Simply horrible. Unwatchable! Which is why I was surprised when it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. 

First, the cast is decent. Annbeth Gish, Judd Nelson, Richard Roundtree, and Charles Napier... not exactly A list but recognizable faces. Shaq is a bit wooden in his acting but not horrible. 

The story is actually a pretty decent one. John Henry Irons designs weapons for the military but when a test goes wrong and his friend is paralyzed, he quits. His military weapons end up in the hands of street thugs and he creates a steel suit of armor to go take on the bad guys. What's wrong with that? It's actually executed fairly well with a nice supporting cast that help round out the movie.

Effects wise, the film is okay. Nothing great but nothing that stands out as spectacularly cheesy as well.

The action was fairly realistic throughout the film. Since Steel doesn't actually have any super powers, he relies on technology to fight crime. He's actually more like Iron Man than Superman. I thought it was a TAD bit unbelievable that he was able to make super weapons in a junkyard. I also wondered why the bad guys didn't just shoot him in the exposed part of his face. I liked the sequence where the cops chased him, thinking that he was actually a criminal. The worst part of the film is when Steel must get rid of a grenade by throwing it through a basket-ball-rim-sized hole in the wall. Really?  

The character's storyline very closely mirrored his origin story from the comics, minus the actual character of Superman. Perhaps DC didn't want the stink from this movie to be connected directly with Superman. Steel's character was missing the Superman "S" from his chest (in the comics, he eventually ditched the "S" anyway) but they did prominently show Shaq's Superman "S" and "Man of Steel" tattoo ("Man of Steel" was Steel's original full name). Nothing (except perhaps the Superman tattoo and a brief reference to Superman in dialogue) connects this directly to the Christopher Reeve Superhero movie but nothing directly contradicts anything from the Superman and Supergirl films either. I'm guessing it is out of continuity but fans can make up their own minds.

Perhaps some fans may have been upset by Steel's use of his hammer as a gun which, I believe, is not in the comics continuity. That didn't bother me too much. Overall, while this movie isn't GREAT it isn't TERRIBLE either. Certainly not the worst superhero film I've ever seen! 

1LR rating: 8 out of 20 - It's a Miss!

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace Review

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is considered by many to be the worst Superman film ever. I would disagree. Is this film, "good?" Maybe not, but there's a lot of good in it and it is certainly better than the series oddball, Superman III.

First, the good:
This film shares a lot in common with its predecessors, particularly Superman and Superman II.. Some may call this a negative but if you liked it the first time, why wouldn't you like it this time? This film fits very nicely with the first two films, returning Lois Lane as a central character and Gene Hackman as Lex (his "parting is.... inevitable" line is brilliant!). Superman reveals his identity to Lois (again), flies with Lois (again), does the Super-kiss (again), the plot of the film involves missiles (again), Lex summons Superman using ultrasonics (again)... I could go on. I liked how this movie addressed the worldwide geopolitical repercussions of Superman's existence. It's easy to show Superman rescuing cats out of trees but why doesn't Superman end all war? The nuclear issue was THE hot button topic in the 80's and I think this movie expressed what a lot of Americans were feeling: We wished the nukes would just go away. Superman's speech to the UN is awesome. It was also good to see Superman fighting an actual super villain in this film. The Nuclear Man proved to be a real threat to Superman. In fact, my wife watched this film for the first time recently and midway through the film she wondered out loud if they would really kill Superman. The whole plotline with the Warfields buying and ruining the Daily Planet brought out the best in Perry, Clark, and Lois. The characterization of Clark was dead on: "He's the oldest living Boyscout. He's trustworthy, helpful, loyal, obedient..."

And then, the weird, the bad, and the weirdly bad. Superman films NEVER get the rules of space and/or time correct. So here we see Superman speaking in space, a normal human being carried into space, and Superman can apparently hear radio waves (he responds to a Russian singing inside his space suit). Anyway, that runaway satellite would have killed that astronaut in an instant. Superman flies Lois across the country in a very brief period of time... 3,000 MPH would have killed her!

In this film it is also implied that Superman hates the earth. He cuts the top off of a mountain to stop a volcano. Really? This is going to work? Ever heard of corking a volcano? He also moves the moon for the sole purpose of blocking the sun. Why not just fly into the moon's shadow? You really had to cause worldwide tsunamis for a small, brief tactical advantage? Then Supes risks a full-fledges Chernobyl event by dropping the Nuclear Man into a nuclear reactor. Wait... isn't that murder? Since the Nuclear Man had Superman's genes does this mean that this method could also kill Superman? "High school physics?" Huh?

I never understood the whole, "Disarm the world" thing. It says that the governments aren't willing to disarm themselves, but then they fire their missiles into the sky where Superman collects them one by one. Why the change of heart? Or were the countries actually trying to destroy one another, hoping that Superman would miss a few missiles? And how does Superman know he got all of the missiles?

Powers are, as always, wacky in Superman films. I guess I accept the whole telekineses thing but Superman rebuilding a destroyed Great Wall of China in mere seconds with some kind of weird vision is too much. Superman also cooks a duck through a wall and the oven with his heat vision. Since when can heat vision pass through walls? Mind explaining how the Nuclear Man's scratches turned Superman into a sickly 80 year old? Wait, I thought if the Nuclear Man lost contact with the sun for even a few minutes he'd shut down... so why didn't he shut down when he flew into the volcano's core?

Oh, and it's always nice to see a vindictive Clark use his powers to nearly kill a civilian like when he drops a 200 pound weight on a jerk in the gym. Way to teach him, Clark! I could go on, talking about cops wearing headphones to listen to a car speaker system, Superman understanding just who Nuclear Man means when he randomly asks the question, "Where is woman?", how easy it was to cut Superman's hair in the museum, and the irresponsibility of hitting baseballs into space where, you know, the astronauts Superman just got done rescuing are. And don't even get me STARTED on the Nuclear Man clothing issue.

Nitpicking aside, at the end of the day I like this movie. It may be pure nostalgia, but I feel it does a great job of capturing the zeitgeist of the 80's. Both Superman and Clark Kent are spot on and, at the end of the day, that's what you bought the ticket for. Not a great film, but not the worst in the series either.

1LR Review: 14 out of 20 - It's a Hit!

Superman Returns Movie Review

Superman returned but, as it turns out, he doesn't refund. Because after I saw this movie originally in the theaters that is what I wanted to ask for: A refund. The shame of it is this film does so much RIGHT yet misses the mark so completely. I'll spare you the suspense: Worst Superman Movie of All Time. But, let's first highlight the positives:

• This film has a healthy respect for the property and the original two movies.
• The John Williams score is iconic and evokes the essence of Superman immediately.
• Brando footage - how awesome is it that they used the actual voice and image of Brando as Jor-El? Freakin' awesome, that's how awesome.
• Keeping Superman I and II in film continuity is a stroke of genius... in concept. In execution.... see below in "the bad."
• Even the opening credits style mirrors the originals.
• Superman strikes a pose in one scene that mirrors the cover of Action Comics #1. 
• Kevin Spacey portrays an excellent Lex Luthor. My favorite line, "We've got time to kill!"
• The entire first portion of the film is amazing. 
• Director Bryan Singer respected the audience by not rehashing the entire origin of Superman. You get a plot synopsis, a travel through time in a title sequence and then the movie starts.
• Superman's crash into the field is visually amazing and there are quite a few very nice character moments.
• The "Superman learns he can fly" sequence fills in an important gap and is a very cool sequence... but it hardly seems necessary to the film and is in no way relevant to the plot.

Now, the bad. And there's a lot of that as well.

• First, Brandon Routh. He's no Reeve, that's for sure. I'd say he is my least favorite Superman AND Clark Kent out of EVERYONE that has played these roles. Even Dean Cain did a better job. Routh just looks mean and kinda creepy.
• Some of the main plot points are very weak.
• Astronomers seem to have found Krypton. Oh really? How, exactly? How did they know it was Krypton? And, it turns out, there's really nothing there after all. Say what?
• Wait... so Lex's big plan is to create a new continent that looks like the Fortress of Solitude? Have you seen that thing? Who would want to live there? That terrain is extremely uneven and hard to navigate... let alone, you know, grow crops on or anything. Oh, and to top it off, let's make it radioactive with Kryptonite!
• Superman flies a MOUNTAIN ISLAND of Kryptonite Crystals into outer space? Wait, I thought a softball sized chunk of this stuff almost killed him in the first movie... Does... Not... Compute....
• The fact that they kept this film in continuity is great but they seemed to count of the audience not remembering the other films. For example:
• Lois whispers to Superman that the child is his. Sure, she could figure this out because the kid heaved a piano but Lois doesn't REMEMBER having intercourse with Superman. After all, Superman wiped her memory with a Super-kiss in Superman II. Isn't Lois at all... you know... curious about when Superman impregnated her? For that matter, wasn't she at all curious when she got pregnant HOW she got pregnant and who the true father was? During SR Lois doesn't show any other signs of remembering Clark's secret identity. Very odd.
• At the end of Superman II the fortress's control panel and the crystals are destroyed but here it is perfectly fine and fully functional with all of its crystals. Huh?  
• In Superman II, Clark sleeps with Lois AFTER giving up his powers so how does his son have superpowers? 
• At the end of Superman II, Superman says, "I won't let you down again," to the President. Are we to believe he then promptly takes off for five years? Thanks a lot, Super-Jerk!
• Superman travels to Krypton and back... a trip that takes five years. 
• First of all, Superman returns in a Kryptonian spaceship. Where'd the ship come from? Not from the Fortress of Solitude since it was rendered inoperable in Superman II. 
• Why did Superman even need a spaceship? Clearly he can travel faster than light on his own (turning back time in Superman : the Movie) and he can survive in space (as seen in multiple Superman movies).
• Where did the spaceship go after the landing? In one scene we see a weakened Superman collapse and in the next sequence Clark looks out over the field... no spaceship at all and no crater, burn damage or trench where the spaceship hit.
• Are we to believe nobody investigated this "meteor hit?"
• Sometimes when the film "honors the original" it simply is laziness. Do we need a repeat of the rotating door gag or Lois flying again or Superman saving another plane or the old "Lois interviews Superman" thing? No, probably not.
• A big problem is that this movie just STALLS OUT half way through. HOW BORING. Upon repeated viewings I actually had a hard time staying awake. Not a good sign. And the ending is so weak.
• Probably my biggest complaint is the characterization of Superman. In this film he's nothing but a selfish, creepy voyeur. 
• Using his Super-hearing to eavesdrop on the meeting between Perry and Lois.
• Spying on Lois in her house.
• Trying to steal Lois away from Richard, her very, very boring fiancée.
• "I'm always around, Lois." Wait, is that a threat? Are you stalking me? Answer: YES.
• Clark drinks a beer then flies off to save a plane. Yeah, that's the Clark I remember. From Superman III when he went evil! I can just see it - Superman gives his "air travel safety" speech and flies off. One reporter turns to another and says, "Is it me or did Superman's breath smell like Budweiser? Maybe THAT'S where he's been for five years! Living inside a bottle!"
• How can we make Superman cooler... hmmm.... how about making him a deadbeat dad. Yeah, everybody loves a really heroic deadbeat dad!

So, in the final analysis, I applaud Bryan Singer's INTENTIONS. If he had managed to pull this off it would have been sheer genius. For whatever reasons (perhaps, like, 20 years of rewrites or something) this film fails on almost every conceivable level.

Superman may have returned in this film but I wish he hadn't. Skip this film totally lest it tarnish your image of the Man of Steel for good.

1LR Review: 9 out of 20 - It's a Miss!

Superman III Review

This image pretty much sums up Superman III. Richard Lester, who took over Superman II from Richard Donnor, was allowed to run wild with this film. What was Richard Lester drinking when he directed this? I would call this the worst of the original Superman movies. Still, it's not without its positives, so let's start there.

• The bit with Clark's old high school sweater was neat. At one point he holds it up to his chest, the giant "S" mirroring his Superman icon. At another time he wears it tied around his neck, draped down his back like a cape.
• Lana Lang was a welcome addition. Her character was wonderfully ADD and seemed to embody Smallville's innocence. 
• When Superman takes an interest Ricky, Lana's son, this mirror the father-son themes from the first movie. Since Jor-El "dies" in both the first and second movies (well, at least the Richard Donnor cut), it was refreshing to see Clark take a fatherly interest in Ricky.
• Evil Superman caused by synthetic kryptonite. Clearly the highlight of this film is the "Dark Superman." Right after the world is threatened by Zod and the other criminal Kryptonians (try saying "criminal Kryptonians" ten times fast) they witness a Superman without inhibitions. It was cool seeing Superman pick up chics and getting blitzed. But Superman's "crime spree" is more like a series of childish pranks - straightening the Leaning Tower of Piza and blowing out the Olympic torch. I liked the color scheme of the "Drunk Superman" and I noted that it was very similar to the color scheme using for Superman Return's creepy voyeur Superman. Irony, anyone?
• The Clark Kent / Superman fight is epic. You're never quite sure if this is real or all in Superman's head but it is awesome to see Evil Superman gloat as he kicks Clark Kent's press pass across a junkyard. And how awesomely out of character is it to see Clark choke the life out of Superman? Makes you think that even though Clark won, he'll never be the same...
• This is the first Superman movie that I actually remember going to see in the theater and my one true memory of seeing this movie the first time is Vera turning into the mechanical computer woman. MAN DID THAT CREEP ME OUT AS A KID!

Now, on to the... sigh... bad... I'll try to be brief as there's just so much of it...

• First, where's Superman? The Superman action in this film is incredibly limited. In fact, for that matter, the CLARK action in this film seems limited. WAY too much time was spent on Richard Pryor's character, Gorman, and the film's boring villain, Webster.
• It seems Lester just wanted to get rid of the entire supporting cast: Lois is off to the Caribbean, Jimmy breaks his leg early, and Perry is stuck in Metropolis while Clark is off to Smallville. Lex Luthor is replaced with a stupid villain, Webster.
• The film really shows its age. Since computers are the primary focus, every time a computer is shown you just think about how old they are. Also, Gorman gets cut off of unemployement after 36 weeks. He views himself as a bum. Today you can get unemployment ranging for up to 99 weeks! Talk about changing times!
• Stupid slapstick. Why did Lester feel that Superman movies needed more stupid visual gags? He was the one responsible for the windstorm in the second movie. Now he brings us more slapstick with mimes and blind people. Oh, the blind man walked through the painting and used the street line drawing machine as a seeing eye dog! Ha-ha-ha-Ugh.
• The very little Superman action we do see is either inconsequential or very unrealistic. 
• Thrill, watching Superman stop a wheat harvester!
• Gasp as you witness Superman freeze and entire lake, lift it up, and then the lake melts before it can hit the ground! Wait, why didn't Superman just cool the acid tanks or put the fire out with his cold breath?
• Don't blink or you'll miss Superman rescue a guy from a car improbably filled with water!
• Take you heart meds to prepare for Superman RECEIVING A AWARD!
• Stare in amazement as Superman DRIES OUT THE GROUND AFTER A RAIN!
• Try not to freak out as Superman FIGHTS A COMPUTER! *Yawn*
• The entire plot is very, very, very weak. Wait... you're telling me that all of this is so a businessman can control the coffee crop and oil industries? Isn't that how it works in reality anyway? 

So, in conclusion, Superman III is bad. Not as bad as Superman Returns, which I will tear apart in the next installment of the Superman movie reviews, but bad.

1LR Review: 10 out of 20 - It's a Miss!

Superman II: The Richard Donnor Cut Review

I liked the Richard Donnor Cut. I had never seen it until viewing it recently. Viewed in conjunction with Superman: The Movie it is a little odd considering they re-used the time-travel bit (which is not actually "re-using" since the time travel scene was originally in this movie anyway). It makes me wish there was a "Richard Donnor Cut" of Superman: The Movie as well so you can see both films together as he originally intended them.

In places this version of the film is a bit rough considering that some of the scenes were never filmed in a finished take. It is amazing to me how you can take the same plotline and with some minor tweaks make a completely different film.

First, the changes that worked for me:

• S2:TRDC does a much better job of tying the two films together than the original Superman II. Gone is the Eiffel Tower terrorists - instead, the missile from the first movie is used to free the villains from the Phantom Zone. 
• Lois suspects Clark's secret much earlier on, comparing a picture in the newspaper of Superman to Clark. This makes it seem much more plausible when she tests him by jumping out of the window.
• Superman's mother is replaced with Brando as Jor-El. Give me a Hallelujah! 
• Probably my favorite new scene is one in which Lois tests Clark by firing a gun at him. Clark admits he's Superman and then Lois tells him she used a blank. Brilliant!
• When Superman loses his powers his clothes don't magically change. Street clothes stay street clothes.
• Superman sleeps with Lois BEFORE losing his powers.
• Jor-El "dies" to restore Superman's powers. In the original version no explanation was given. 

And, the bad...

• Superman destroys the Fortress of Solitude... why again?
• Superman breaks up with Lois. He's just going to turn back time and erase the whole thing so why make her suffer by breaking up with her?
• Superman turns back time. It didn't make sense in the first one and it doesn't make sense here. Let's think about it. Superman turns back time, undoing all damage to Earth, to the point where the villains are re-imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. BUT...
• He doesn't CHANGE time, meaning the same sequence of events should occur all over again. The missile will still free the villains.
• Clark avoids Lois's suspicions successfully this time. 
• Clark then proceeds to go to the diner and beat up the bully trucker but here's the thing - Since Superman turned back time the trucker never beat Clark up! That means that Clark goes a beats up a trucker for absolutely no reason at all! Man, now THAT'S vindictive! "You punched me in another reality. Welcome to intensive care!"

All in all I would say I enjoyed the Richard Donnor Cut more than the original. Gone are many of the visual pranks that just seemed to be out of place in the original version. This version just seems to flow better and is more cohesive. Despite his efforts it is obvious that this film is truly a Frankenstein - sewn together from bits here and there. I just wish that Donnor's vision had remained intact for both films so we could see them both as they were truly intended to be.

1LR Review: 16 out of 20 - It's a Hit!

Superman II Review

In my ongoing quest to take the true measure of the Superman films, I've rewatched Superman II several times recently. Filmed simultaneously with Superman: The Movie, this film should have been a slam dunk success. Instead, it got bogged down in studio hijinx. In the middle of production director Richard Donnor was fired and replaced, bringing on massive script revisions. You know that whole "turn back time" thing from the first movie? It was ACTUALLY supposed to be in THIS movie! We're talking major rewrites here.

First, the good. Christopher Reeve is once again a brilliant Clark Kent AND Superman. The return of Gene Hackman as Lex along with his two idiotic sidekicks Otis and Miss Teschmacher are classic Superman. Hackman steals the movie with his interactions with Zod. Also, it's nice to see Superman fight actual superhumans that can challenge him physically. Zod is an amazing character. He has some great lines such as calling Earth, "Planet Houston" and responding to "Oh, God!" With, "ZOD." Ursa's outfit is sexy and she exudes a certain cockiness. Non's inability to use heat vision is comedic gold. And the moment when Superman returns after his absence is what the film is all about. Amazing.

Next, the... odd. This film is filled with many odd moments that make the viewer say.... huh? For example, Superman and the other Kryptonians seem to have powers we never knew about before. Assuming that Superman flies using telekinesis, this film extends that idea to other objects (such as a policeman's shotgun). Superman wraps up a villain using his chest insignia as a weird net. Superman also appears to be able to create illusions of himself at will, throw his voice, and teleport. Not to mention being able to erase or alter someone's memories by kissing them! Oh, and perhaps you can add telepathy to the list of powers. How else can you explain how the Phantom Zone Kryptonians can both hear the astronauts speak in their space suits and speak back to them in the void of space?

The film seems oddly fixated on landmarks - The Eiffle Tower, Niagra Falls, Mr. Rushmore, and the White House all make appearances in this film. Someone else that makes a return appearance is John Ratzenberger (Cliff, from Cheers). The cameo is just enough to make you scratch your head a little. Especially since Marlon Brando DOESN'T make a return, being inexplicably replaced by Superman's mother... wait, what's her name again? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either. This is compounded when later in the film a human Clark calls for "Father!" who hasn't been in the film at all.

It's a little odd that Superman, the man who "never lies," wins by tricking his enemies through manipulation and deception. He lies to Luthor knowing that he will pass along that information to his enemies. And then, to defeat a powerless Zod, Non, and Ursa Superman could have simply picked them all up and flown them to jail as he does Lex. But instead, Superman apparently feels like killing the helpless mortals by throwing them into the frigid arctic waters. That doesn't seem very Superman-like to me. Likewise, at the end of the movie Superman must have been feeling a little vindictive to smash up a diner taking out some petty revenge on a human bully.

And then there's the super-breath from Zod, Non, and Ursa. I timed it. It goes on for TWO MINUTES AND THIRTY SECONDS. During that period of time, you witness such important plot points as a man rolling backward on roller skates and a man struggling with an open umbrella (wait - was it raining?).

The whole opening sequence is a bit far fetched. Terrorists with a nuclear bomb? Let's send Lois in! She may die but I hope it's not before she turns in her story! What's the best way to get that story? Ride on the underside of an elevator to the top of the Eiffel Tower where the bomb and terrorists are! Wait... how does that get you a story again? And then the bomb explodes in space where Superman takes it... and the force of the explosion causes waves that free the Phantom Zone villains. Wait... what? What waves of force? SPACE IS A VOID!

Likewise, Lois discovering Clark's secret is a bit clunky. She jumps into the river rapids to prove Clark is Superman... and Clark nearly lets her drown. "Sorry Lois, but you found out my secret identity so now you've got to die! Unless, that is, I can save you by happenstance without confirming that I'm Superman." Then five minutes later he intentionally reveals his secret identity to her. The whole romance between Superman and Lois is odd as well. Superman jumps into the sack with her literally on their first date. Then when he gives up his powers there's this moment when Lois is like, "I love Superman, not Clark but you just threw away Superman so now I'm stuck with loser Clark! Thanks buddy!" You get the idea that had Clark stayed human Lois would have quickly lost interest.

Despite my nit-picking and minor gripes, I thoroughly enjoy this film. It's a very strong entry into the Superman film franchise. So strong that when Bryan Singer took control of the franchise he kept Superman: The Movie and Superman II in continuity. Which is just odd because at the end of Superman II Superman says to the President, "Sorry I've been away. I won't let you down again," and then at the beginning of Superman Returns we discover that Superman's been away for five years. That's you're first clue about Superman Returns.

1LR Review: 15 out of 20 - It's a Hit!

Superman: The Movie: The Expanded Edition Review

Superman: The Movie has gone through MANY different variations in its different releases. When it was broadcast on television it was manipulated in any number of ways with scenes being added in and taken out, shortened and lengthened. It is rare that I see an "extended," "expanded," "director's cut," or "special edition" that I feel actually improves on the original film. Such is the case here.

The additions do little to improve or worsen the film. We see a young Lois Lane witnessing a teenage Clark demonstrate his superpowers by running faster than the train Lois is on. We get an extra scene with Brando as Jor-El. We get Ma Kent doing her best to sell Cheerios in what is an obvious commercial sponsorship placement. There are a couple of other very minor editions but that's just about it. 

The best thing I can say about this "expanded" edition is that it is innocuous. I'll stick with the original, thanks, but no thanks. 

1LR Review: 17 out of 20 - It's a Solid Hit!

Superman: The Movie Review

Superman: The Movie (1978) is the best Superman movie produced to date. Still, it is far from perfect and I wondered if it was the fog of nostalgia that caused me to remember this movie fondly or if, indeed, it is actually a quality superhero movie. To the end, I recently re-watched this movie several times (I believe the last time I saw it I was a kid and it was on television - probably about 15 or so years).

First, the positives. From the beginning when the in-film curtain opens and we're drawn into a black and white Superman comic book, this film demonstrates that it really respects the character of Superman. Superman as a fully costumed superhero doesn't appear until almost an hour into this film. That doesn't bother me because the stuff with Jor-El and the Kents is so interesting. The strong themes of father figures/saviors/God is a big positive in this film. Characters are well defined and are easily relate-able (Lois is a reporter that can't spell, Perry is principled and hard working). Christopher Reeves is not only the perfect Superman he's also the perfect Clark Kent. In a few scenes when he transforms on screen from on to the other you can see how Reeves actually changes posture, mannerisms and voice for each version of the character. The script does a nice job of making Superman seem like a MAN but still pure like when he tells Lois as he's about to take her flying, "Peter Pan flew with children, Lois." The interactions between Lex Luthor and the hapless Otis (and to a lesser degree Miss Teschmacker) are comedic gold. Finally, Superman in this film is a role model no parent would hesitate to tell their children to look up to. Even as an adult I find this Superman to be inspiring and inspirational.

Now, it's not all sunshine and roses. Perhaps due to numerous rewrites, refilming scenes, and studio meddling the timeline in this film is really a mess. The film starts in June 1938 (clearly identifying the Great Depression) with Kal-El as a child and Krypton destroyed and the main storyline occurs in 1978. Multiple times in the movie this idea in contradicted, however. While at the Fortress of Solitude Jor-El states that Clark is 18 and he stays at the fortress for 12 years. This would make Superman 30 years old in 1968, not 1978. At another time Lex Luthor quotes a Superman newspaper interview as saying Krypton blew up in 1948. Still another reference by Jor-El muddies the timeline even further by stating that he's been dead for thousands and thousands of years. Huh? That would make Superman thousands of years old! Then in the climax of the film Superman travels backwards through time to rescue Lois. But there's a double-Superman conundrum here. Apparently Superman still saves Jimmy from falling off the dam but no earthquake threatens Lois's car after Superman travels back in time. Wouldn't the old version of Superman see the version of himself that traveled back in time? Apparently a time-paradox that destroys reality is not going to stop Superman from selfishly using his powers! Maybe the time paradox caused the really bad model work...

And don't even get me started on the honesty thing. In the interview with Lois Lane Superman state that he never lies but, in fact, Superman is a well versed liar. After all, isn't Clark Kent just one big lie? How often does Clark Kent have to lie ("I must have fainted," after he catches a mugger's bullet for one example.) to protect his secret identity as Superman? In fact, following the movie's storyline one can only assume that Clark Kent faked his journalistic experience. He spends 12 years in the Fortress of Solitude. Certainly he had no experience on a college paper or any college degree at all for that matter (since he didn't attend college).

A couple of things in the film just strike me as odd. Showing full frontal nudity on the young boy in the Kryptonian escape pod is a strange choice. Also, the amount of swearing random characters on the street do is a bit unnerving and unnecessary. I want to be able to show this film to my young children but I can't because of the language! Luthor's "reasoning" that a hunk of Krypton (that apparently traveled from another galaxy in a very short period of time) would harm Superman is dubious at best. That's like Martians assuming a hunk of the earth would be harmful to a human on another planet. And what about Ma Kent? Pa Kent dies and what does Superman do? Take off for 12 years and leave his elderly adopted mother to take care of an entire farm by herself! That's gratitude!

Despite its obvious flaws, I still say Superman: The Movie is an amazing piece of superhero cinema. Richard Donnor managed to strike just the right tone between corny and worldly. If only the studio hadn't insisted on messing around with his scripts! Did you know that the whole time travel thing wasn't even supposed to be in the first movie but the second? Ugh!

Superman: The Movie retains all of the charm it had over 30 years ago. It's a classic and sets the bar high for any future Superman movie endeavors.

1LR Review: 18 out of 20 - It's a Solid Hit!