Supergirl.

Review #2397: Supergirl.

Cast: 

Helen Slater (Kara Zor-El / Linda Lee / Supergirl), Faye Dunaway (Selena), Peter O'Toole (Zaltar), Hart Bochner (Ethan), Mia Farrow (Alura In-Ze), Brenda Vaccaro (Bianca), Peter Cook (Nigel), Simon Ward (Zor-El), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Maureen Teefy (Lucy Lane), and David Healy (Mr. Danvers) Directed by Jeannot Szwarc (#555 - Jaws 2)

 

Review: 

“Physically it’s not at all the prototype of a superhero the way Superman is. Superman was the man of steel and he’s big, he’s got muscles et cetera…she has superpowers [that] are the same…but where Superman is power and strength, [Supergirl] is more like style and elegance.” 

You might wonder where Supergirl came from. Well, it only took a few years (read: 1959) for Otto Binder and Al Plastino (the two credited creators of the character as writer and illustrator, respectively) to introduce the original character to Action Comics that had a cousin to Superman arrive from a doomed place that ended up raised as "Linda Lee" (later adopted to add Danvers) in an orphanage. Basically, the character was created in the same headspace that created super-powered pets to accompany the hero. Anyway, you might remember that when the Salkinds (Alexander, Ilya) bought the film rights to Superman in 1975 by paying money to Warner Bros to license the intellectual property, it also included the character of Supergirl. The Salkinds actually wanted to use the character in Superman III to maybe make a spinoff movie....but Warner Bros. apparently vetoed it (pity, good luck settling with Richard Pryor). At any rate, the two announced their plans to do a Supergirl movie in 1982 and had ideas in mind to maybe have Christopher Reeve appear in a bit role to set up a quest...and then he didn't want to appear in the movie. At least he suggested Jeannot Szwarc (who he worked with on Somewhere in Time [1980]) should direct the movie, since the Salkinds couldn't even get Robert Wise to do the movie. The screenplay was written by David Odell (well, it was re-written heavily, but still), who had written for films such as The Dark Crystal (1982) and later Masters of the Universe (1987). There somehow exists three different versions of the film to consider. The original cut of the movie was 138 minutes long, but test audiences apparently thought it was a bit too long, necessitating cuts. So, you would think it would be settled at having 124 minutes for the runtime...but no! The 124-minute version was released internationally, but somehow, American audiences got a version that lasted just 105 minutes (namely by trimming more sequences from Argo City, Midvale, etc). By 2000, one could finally check out the director's cut and International Cut on home media. Made for roughly over $30 million (as distributed by Tri-Star Pictures, who bent to the Salkinds wishing to release the movie in the winter of 1984 rather than in the summer), the movie was a general flop with audiences. Interestingly, in the comic books, the character was killed off (for a number of years, anyway) in the famed series Crisis on Infinite Earths. Slater never played the character again on film, but she appeared in the Supergirl TV series a few decades later. This was the last hurrah for the Salkinds and Super-people on film, as they sold to the Cannon Group in 1985 for the disaster that became Superman IV in 1987*.

Basically, if you didn't care much for Superman III (1983), you will find the exact level of disinterest for Supergirl (1984). Both are tired efforts that show clear strain in all of its flabby flatness, which starts with the movie looking like a failed TV movie production and ends with a climax that does not exactly warrant further adventures. They clearly wanted to have their big-name stars lift up a young would-be name just like six year prior, but the cracks are apparent everywhere. Imitating how they cast Christopher Reeve years earlier in looking for an unknown, Helen Slater had quite the qualification of having been in exactly one TV episode and zero movies prior to Supergirl (hey, they also tested out folks like Demi Moore and Brooke Shields). Honestly, she does fine with the material that shows a naive but charming would-be hero that you could definitely like for other adventures (okay maybe not with the school stuff, that whole "changes hair color and costume" BS only works when stoned). Bochner, on the other hand, has nothing to work with as the romantic interest, and it doesn't help that a chunk of the time sees him under a love potion. Teefy and McClure (the only link to the Superman films) aren't worth talking about. Evidently, Dunaway must've loved Mommie Dearest (1982) so much that she decided eating the scenery in hammy acting needed seconds. Sure, we know she is a worthwhile actress, but the material she is given here is so weak that she has no choice but to ham it up to try and distract the viewer that is barely above the middling villainous comic book movie presence you saw in the aforementioned third Superman movie. She's supposed to be self-centered and a terror with what power can do to someone, but she just seems more man-hungry than anything, considering that she is first wrapped up in getting a man to drink some love potion and when her powers of persuasion fail, she needs the guy she ditched to do the job for her (oh but then she sends a woman into a phantom zone). Incidentally, she gets stopped only when a man intervenes (first when one of them fiddles with the magic ball thing and the second when the warlock that she decided to betray after getting his help in the first place tells our hero, who had to be told that she could go on *twice* beforehand, how to get the villain trapped). Honestly, they might've done better if Cook or O'Toole were the villains. It isn't even worth giving Vaccaro criticism beyond saying that Ned Beatty could've done this goon shtick in his sleep**. It's funny that Cook is supposed to be playing both a warlock and a teacher but looks like he would rather being doing a bit instead. In theory, Farrow was meant to be a big name to draw attention to the film and deliver drama to the movie...and she gets less time on screen than O'Toole, a far more talented actor even when he is phoning it in. The effects are okay, but in general, the movie looks too tired to be anything other than campy cheese. It might work out for those who love to view the films of camp or the old days of failed franchises, but it probably was for the best that it went by the wayside.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Interestingly, the Salkinds still had the chance to do other things away from Superman, they developed a television series based on the character of Superboy later in the decade.

**Beatty and Vaccaro were both nominated for Academy Awards, you know. But Beatty had a hell of a speech in Network (1976), so we salute him. And I guess we will find a worthy Mia Farrow movie to watch that isn't made by the overrated Woody Allen someday.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Review #2229: I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Cast: 

Nancy Allen (Pam Mitchell), Bobby Di Cicco (Tony Smerko), Marc McClure (Larry Dubois), Susan Kendall Newman (Janis Goldman), Theresa Saldana (Grace Corrigan), Wendie Jo Sperber (Rosie Petrofsky), Eddie Deezen (Richard "Ringo" Klaus), Christian Juttner (Peter Plimpton), Will Jordan (Ed Sullivan), Read Morgan (Peter's Father), Claude Earl Jones (Al), and James Houghton (Eddie) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away)

Review: 

Sure, there have been a few Beatles-related films here and there. But this is one that its creators often referred to as "a cross between American Graffiti and Ben-Hur" that somehow makes sense (for the latter film, one never sees a certain face...). Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. Robert Zemeckis spent a decade studying and working prior to this film. This included meeting Bob Gale at USC Film School that shared his interest in making "Hollywood movies". Zemeckis directed a short film called "A Field of Honor" that saw him awarded a Student Academy Award in 1975 that attracted the attention of Steven Spielberg because, well, Zemeckis barged into Spielberg's office one day to show it to him. This got Spielberg to be a mentor to Zemeckis that would see him tabbed to direct his first feature film at Universal Pictures, which was this film. Apparently, the original idea was basically the question of if one could make a movie just about waiting in line that eventually spiraled from there. 1978 was an interesting idea for Beatles-adjacent films, with this (loosely sharing the title of The Beatles song "I Want"-oh you already know) being the middle of a group that included the TV mockumentary All You Need Is Cash and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (the jukebox musical with plenty of Beatles songs...as mostly covered by Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees). The resulting film (as written by Zemeckis and Gale as their first filmed screenplay) was not a hit despite warm reviews (preview and beyond) but Zemeckis and Gale kept busy, with the two's script for 1941 being filmed (by Spielberg) and released in 1979 before Zemeckis directed his next film with Used Cars (1980).

It is a pretty madcap film (98 minutes) about the nature of a moment crystalized in time, specifically February of 1964. It is a warmhearted film about people who just get swept up in the mayhem of Beatlemania for a film that lives it to the fullest in a way that manages to ride on charm without needing to show a Beatle up close (which goes with a main group where 28-year-old Allen was the most experienced on film). It is a neatly constructed ensemble film that doesn't have (or really need) an all-encompassing narrative to just roll with people that all manage to evoke a certain time and type (which even features Murray the K, who really referred to himself as a "fifth Beatle") that one can resonate with amid all of the nostalgia that doesn't cloy for a return of the old days but instead just rides the wave of hysteria. One does not wince at seeing the hysteria that arises from these folks, such as saying "Well, his wife could die" when presented with the fact that one of the Beatles being married or just the fact that people could go gaga for something that just happened be in the stomping ground of a Beatle. There is a key balance among the four leading stories that shows a guiding touch of humor within self-realization (small or not), starting with Allen, who has such worthwhile timing when it comes to finding that nerves really do wash away when faced with let's just say is euphoria with a guitar (as opposed to just being a reluctant pal-to-be-wife). Sperber is probably the one that draws the most amusement, because she is paired a good chunk of the time with Deezen and his particular type of energy (perhaps not surprisingly, he has called himself the "world's biggest" Beatles fan) as devotes fans that really makes one consider just how wrapped up a "fan" can be. The rest of the cast does pretty well in drawing amusement in the exhibition of teenage impulse (you know the usual, such as pushing folk music, wannabee saboteur, or wavering fixations), which probably works best with the sequence involving Newman, Di Cicco and Juttner that sees them abscond with tickets with some silly movements and lines that they sell just as well as any other time in the film. The Sullivan sequence involving shots that cut from seeing the group (amid a crowd of other fans) and then, well, parts of that Beatles performance (with stand-ins obviously that were coordinated by a Beatles superfan when it came to movements) is the cherry on top of a worthwhile journey with a pride for the time it aims to capture without stuttering at any real moment. Sure, it is a familiar film in its comedy, but it is a comforting type of film that shows talent among its young cast and crew in terms of execution and overall charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

After Midnight (1989).

Review #1150: After Midnight.

Cast: 
Ramy Zada (Professor Edward Derek), Marg Helgenberger (Alex, segment "All Night Operator"), Marc McClure (Kevin, segment "The Old Dark House"), Jillian McWhirter (Allison), Pamela Adlon (Cheryl), Tracy Wells (Amy, segment "A Night on the Town"), Judie Aronson (Jennifer, segment "A Night on the Town"), Ed Monaghan (Russ, segment "Allison's Story"), Alan Rosenberg (Richard, segment "All Night Operator"), Richard Gabai (Dave), Loyda Ramos (Molly, segment "All Night Operator"), Kerry Remsen (Maggie), and Nadine Van der Velde (Joan, segment "The Old Dark House") Directed by Jim Wheat and Ken Wheat.

Review: 
I suppose there must be something to the task of making an anthology film come to life. Perhaps it is better fitted for television (such as The Twilight Zone or Night Gallery, for example), but the beginning parts of the film, involving the setup with a weird professor played by Zada, does help give the movie some sort of amusing start, complete with a "Psychology of Fear" college class. Honestly, you would be best off sticking to those shows I just mentioned instead. This is a film brought to life by the Wheat brothers, who had helped co-write the screenplay for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988). To properly give the film its due, I'll simply recap my thoughts on the three stories told to us, along with the wraparound parts.

The first segment, titled "The Old Dark House", seems to be destined for cliches, owing to the title that had already been used for two films, made by noted directors James Whale (1932) and William Castle (1963) that had been adapted from a novel called Benighted by J. B. Priestley. Honestly, that bit of history is more interesting for me than the actual segment, which goes nearly exactly the way you'd expect from a spooky house story. There is a twist to it, which I suppose makes it worth it, although it reminds me of a magician doing a magic trick and then pulls a jackrabbit out of the hat to mess with the audience with a chuckle. It probably doesn't hold up well on a re-watch, but it isn't anything too annoying. McClure and Van der Velde do just fine with such okay material, at least. "A Night on the Town" is easily the worst segment, in part because of how dull it is. It features a group of teenage girls who get lost and encounter a rundown gas station and are then chased...by vicious dogs. It's a bit of a tedious story, not evoking any sort of fright or even passion to it. The only thing that amuses me is the fact the conclusion, involving an explosion. "All Night Operator" is an average story, but it is likely the best of the bunch since it actually feels like an actual tale worth telling people. It involves Helgenberger (whose character has a broken leg while skiing) working at an answering service on a night shift before she gets involved with a client who is been stalked. The thing that bugs me about the segment is the ending, since it doesn't really have an ending, as opposed to how the other two segments seemed to have a natural conclusion to them. It may not be very scary (unless spooky callers really get under your skin), but it isn't too bad.

As mentioned earlier, the opening parts do help the movie get a bit of footing, with some hammy acting by Zada that is at least trying to get the movie somewhere interesting - he plays a character who likes to scare his students on his opening lecture by going through with Russian roulette (complete with makeup after faking getting shot) and messing with one of the surly kids to scare him, complete with pulling a revolver on him. What's weird is the ultimate setup: he offers private lessons when the college tells him to use textbooks for the class, and a bunch of students go to the lesson. I don't think I ever had a class in college that offered private lessons at a professor's house, but I digress. During the stories, there are shots showing the student who got scared by the professor trying to get his revenge on the teacher, which all build up to a weird showdown in the basement. The acting from the people in the wraparounds besides Zada isn't too interesting, especially since McWhirter doesn't give too much to this character that we follow for the wraparounds. You would think that she has her own story to tell, but she ultimately does not. The last trick the film plays on the audience is the worst of all - all of it was a dream. With how the wraparound segment ends, of course the film picks the one trick that undoes what just occurred on screen. Ultimately, this is a pretty mediocre movie, but the segments aren't recommendable in any sense of the word for frights or scares, being more something to watch on a lark. Nobody stands out in terms of acting aside from Zada, although that may be due to the ridiculous nature of his character, and the film is more of a tedious journey than an actual fun time. There isn't much to recommend, but if you really have a curiosity for anthology tales and cheap 80s thrills without much reward, this might be enough for you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Review #787: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Superman / Clark Kent), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor / voice of Nuclear Man)
Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Jon Cryer (Lenny Luthor), Mark Pillow (Nuclear Man), Sam Wanamaker (David Warfield), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Mariel Hemingway (Lacy Warfield), and Damian McLawhorn (Jeremy) Directed by Sidney J. Furie.

Review
Simply put, this movie is terrible. Any which way you look at it, the movie fails at every level, from failing as a superhero movie to failing to make a plot or direction that works to failing be a movie of spectacle or excitement. To make a long review of this movie would be redundant, but a basic criticism will suffice for such a basic movie. The first (and easiest) flaw to notice is the opening credits, which are representative of both the cheapness of the production studio (Cannon Films) and the harbinger of a movie that goes downhill from there. As usual, Reeve (who contributed to the story for the film) does a fine job, and Hackman returns to make for an entertaining Luthor once again, but neither can save a movie bogged down by terrible, terrible film-making not just from directing, but from a (chopped-down) budget that can't support what the movie wanted to be. The effects are the ultimate final blow, with easily visible strings, a shot of Reeve "flying" towards the camera being repeated numerous times, and numerous other examples of futile attempts at penny pinching. At least Cooper, Kidder and McClure are back, though they don't really very interested in the movie, much like the rest of us. The less said about Cryer, the better. Nuclear Man is certainly a strange villain, looking like he was time-warped from the early 80's, especially with the silver nails, and the fact that he is voiced by Hackman is somewhat off-putting. The fights between him and Superman are downright laughable, and the solution to defeating him via moving the moon in front of the sun is the only perfect way to end such a silly climax.

What is interesting in all of this is the amount of footage that was cut from the movie. Originally, the movie was over 2 hours long, but due to a bad test screening, Furie cut over 30 minutes out of the movie, with a good portion of those scenes (but apparently not all of them) later resurfacing on DVD many years later. Almost all of them have a bit of degradation to them, and scenes meant to show special effects (such as one scene where Superman rescues a child from a tornado) are unfinished, and even the final intended scene, with Superman and Jeremy (a child who wrote him a letter wanting him to intervene in possible war) flying over the Earth isn't finished, with a red glow effect on them.

In the end, the movie has no hope, no substance, no luck, and most of all no budget, proving to be the death knell of the movie franchise for 19 years. I'd recommend the movie as a guide on what not to do with regards to budgeting, editing, and most importantly, presentation.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Superman III.

Review #786: Superman III.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Richard Pryor (Gus Gorman), Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster), Annette O'Toole (Lana Lang), Annie Ross (Vera Webster), Pamela Stephenson (Lorelei Ambrosia), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Marc McClure as (Jimmy Olsen), and Gavan O'Herlihy (Brad Wilson) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and #785 - Superman II)

Review
There is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and/or slapstick. Some comic book movies even excel at moments of lightness in otherwise good films. Superman III is not one of those movies. It's a sad, desperate attempt of trying so hard to be both that it manages to fail at every turn. It's hard to tell when the first cracks appear, but it could be argued that it's either when Richard Pryor first appears, or when the title sequence is shamelessly put on the bottom of the screen so we can all see some slapstick immediately after Pryor shows up. Afterwards, the movie goes up and down from there. Reeve is the best part of the movie, carrying the movie even when you know it's already past the point of no return. He even gets to play a Superman who (briefly) becomes weakened by synthetic kryptonite (just go with it) and becomes...a Superman who fixes the Tower of Pisa and even drinks some alcohol (while flicking peanuts at beer bottles). It's a ridiculous aspect of the movie, but it gives Reeve something to do amidst the Pryor parts that really take up nearly 45% of the film. There's even a scene where the two "Supermans" fight each other, which while being ridiculous (especially in how it ends), is actually pretty interesting to watch.

The new villain this time around is played by Robert Vaughn, but he doesn't really stick out too much, coming off as a Lex Luthor stand-in. O'Toole is the new leading lady (by that I mean for only this film), and while she is relatively decent, she isn't given much to do, as compared to Kidder...who is essentially put on a bus early on. And then of course there's Richard Pryor. He's not inherently terrible, and he is somewhat funny, but he doesn't really feel like he should be in a Superman film. For most of the movie he is on the side of the villain(s), but the second that Superman is in actual danger, he switches sides, and it comes off as a dull surprise. The only thing that surprised me is the computer "robotizing" one of the characters near the end, but of course it's not permanent, so whatever (by the way, how does a computer who is supposed to know Superman's weaknesses not realize how a certain acid gets volatile under intense heat? Actually, forget it, the movie still stinks). The movie's biggest flaw is that there really is no spectacle to any of it. You never really care about anything that goes on, and nothing sticks out in this movie that you truly remember as a good thing. The main idea behind the movie isn't terrible, but the execution falls flat on its face.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman II.

Review #785: Superman II.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Terence Stamp (General Zod), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Jack O'Halloran (Non), Ned Beatty (Otis), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Susannah York (Lara), Clifton James (Sheriff), and E.G. Marshall (The President) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night and #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum)

Review
If you're interested in the review, skip this paragraph, as it does not pertain to the review, merely serving as a little bit of background...

If you remember my review from two years ago of the original Superman movie (#547), I had said that it was a fine epic that succeeded in nearly every way possible, with the most important being that it was entertaining. Naturally, the movie was a success, and Superman II (which had been filmed simultaneously with the first film) would soon follow...but not with Richard Donner, who was "replaced" from the film by the Salkinds producers a few months after the first film's release. Richard Lester was tasked to finish the film. The dispute over what footage of the movie is Donner's and so on continued for years, with a "Richard Donner Cut" made in 2006 that tried to restore (as much as possible) footage that Donner had shot, though he was not involved with that cut.

With all that in mind, Superman II still manages to be a decent sequel. While it isn't up to the same craft as the first film, Superman II is as least entertaining enough to work. The movie has elements of humor that veer into slapstick (no doubt added by Lester), which admittedly gets in the way of enjoying my favorite part of the movie: The climatic fight with Superman and Zod, Ursa & Non. While it is a good fight that takes up the last 30 (or so) minutes of the movie, it is marred by random aspects. One example is Superman throwing his emblem shield at Non, which mystifies me on the level of practicality. Reeve and Kidder do have good chemistry together once again, and the romance is at least watchable, even despite the fact that Superman can just erase memories with a kiss (if he chooses to, I suppose), which makes for a peculiar (if not extremely inevitable) reset. The movie takes time to get going in the sense that it is more fun with Zod and the others around. The effects, while a bit peculiar at times, fit the movie well enough. Stamp certainly makes for a standout villain in the sense that there finally is a villain who can match to the physical strength of Superman, alongside the fact that Stamp is entertaining to watch, especially when asking someone to kneel. I wish that the idea of Superman taking his powers away in favor of being with Lois could have been more than just a five minute blip that just passes through and is nearly forgotten, right up to the end, anyway. I do find it interesting that at the end of the movie, Superman beats up a trucker (the one who had beaten him up while he was temporarily human), because...I guess Superman really felt that he needed to get some sort of retribution. Superman II is a sequel that has its bogging flaws, but it shines just enough with charm and a little bit of magic to work.

As for the sequel...next time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.